Smart Sustainable Cities – Reconnaissance Study

Ericsson White paper Uen 284 23-3277 | January 2016
Laying the foundations  for a smart, sustainable city 

Cities are getting smarter, with technological solutions being deployed to address a variety of common issues. But a smart city is not necessarily sustainable. Five critical considerations are necessary for successful transformation into a smart, sustainable city.

Smart_Sustainable_Cities_v2final.pdf

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank IDRC for co-funding the preparation of this report. Particular thanks are due to Matthew Smith and Laurent Elder who championed the project from the very beginning. We also wish to thank John Bertot (University of Maryland, USA), Wojciech Cellary (Poznań University of Economics, Poland) and Ruhiya Seward (IDRC, Canada) for valuable comments. Last but not least, we wish to thank a group of international experts who were interviewed for this report: Jasmith Barrera (Manager, Spatial Data Infrastructure for the District Capital, Bogotá, Colombia), Ricardo Costa (Deputy Mayor, Municipality of Guimarães, Portugal), Jaime Lerner (Architect and Urban Planner, former Governor of the State of Paraná, former mayor of Curitiba, Brazil), Marco Peres (Director, Observatorio de Sociedad, Gobierno y Tecnologías de la Información, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Colombia), Juan Prada (Director, Information Technology, Municipality of Montevideo, Uruguay) and Lark Yang Tan (Director, Infocomm Development Authority International, Singapore Government).

Executive Summary
The global urban population is expected to grow by 63 percent between 2014 and 2050 – compared to an overall global population growth of 32 percent during the same period. Megacities with over 20 million inhabitants will see the fastest increase in population – and at least 13 new megacities are expected by 2030, in addition to the 28 existing today. The fastest growing urban centres contain around a million inhabitants, and are located in the lower-middle-income countries in Asia and Africa.

The anticipated growth of cities creates unprecedented sustainability challenges. Increasing demands for energy, water, sanitation, education, healthcare, housing, transport and public service are testing the limits of city infrastructures. In 2015, 828 million people lived in temporary housing that lack basic services like sanitation and access to drinking water. Six million new people move to such housing every year, thus ever increasing the demand for services. Cities are responsible for 67 percent of the global energy demand and consume 40 percent of world’s energy overall. Urban centres are responsible for 70 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to climate change. In addition, urban centers increasingly experience natural disasters. They can also witness social tension brought on by rising inequality and unemployment, air and water pollution, traffic congestion, and urban violence and crime.

At the same time, urban centres offer tremendous opportunity for economic development. Eighty percent of the world’s gross domestic product is generated in cities. Urban citizens earn on average three times the income of their rural counterparts. Cities have a concentration of universities and are critical venues of research and innovation, political activism and cultural exchange. People living in larger cities tend also to have a smaller energy footprint, require less road and communication infrastructure, consume fewer resources, and have higher productivity levels. For example, according to earlier research, a city of eight million has 15 percent more productivity, e.g. wages and patents produced per capita, and 15 percent fewer infrastructure needs, e.g. gas stations, electric wires and roads, than do will two cities of four million each.

Smart Cities have emerged as one response to the challenges and opportunities created by rapid urbanization. This report presents the results of a reconnaissance study examining the thesis that Smart Cities advance sustainable development. The study analysed 876 scientific publications, recommendations from 51 think tank organizations and 119 concrete Smart City initiatives. Researchers also conducted seven interviews with city managers, planners and researchers responsible for successful Smart City initiatives.

Smart Sustainable Cities
There are different digital technology models for cities, from Digital Cities to Intelligent Cities to Smart Cities, which are incorporated according to the degree and nature of digital technology capacity of the city. Digital Cities integrate digital technology into the city’s core infrastructure systems, while Intelligent Cities rely on the Digital City infrastructure to build intelligent buildings, transportation systems, schools, enterprises, public spaces, and public services, and integrate these into intelligent urban systems. Smart Cities deploy intelligent urban systems to serve socio-economic and ecological development, and to improve quality of life and address the origins of social instability in cities.

The Smart Sustainable City – the concept advanced in this report – best realizes the benefits of Smart Cities as it focuses on a continuous transformative process, based on stakeholder engagement and collaboration, and building different types of human, institutional and technical capacities. In this model, the city contributes to improving the quality of life of its citizens by pursuing socio-economic development and protecting natural resources among other locally-defined priorities.

The study learned for instance that Smart City initiatives can help overcome the limitations of traditional urban development that tends to manage urban infrastructure systems in silos. The siloed system leads to poor information sharing between systems, functions and stakeholders, such as citizens, businesses, government and civil society organizations. Smart City initiatives leverage data and services offered by digital technologies, such as cloud computing, open data sets, or the Internet of Things to help connect city stakeholders, improve citizen involvement, offer new or enhance existing services, and provide context-aware views on city operations. A city-wide digital infrastructure can help integrate different urban infrastructure systems including energy, water, sewage, or transport, and enable efficient management, control and optimization of such systems. These initiatives also address environmental and human-capacity issues.

Smart City development is at the same time highly complex and challenging. The integration of urban systems into one “system of systems” capable of self-adaptation and self-management is difficult. There are constraints on system interoperability and reuse of data, and heterogeneous sources of quantitative and qualitative data provided by open government, citizen science and other projects and low capacity for connecting data to analytical models. Smart Cities raise serious concerns related to citizens’ privacy, government surveillance and other digital rights. There are also other issues with connecting urban sustainability challenges to actionable approaches, social and territorial cohesion issues requiring unique governance solutions, and the different discourse used by technologists and policymakers. In the end, it is critical that Smart Cities are not driven by particular ideological positions or commercial interests, but rather embrace public value in all economic, social, ecological, and political dimensions.

This study discovered a wide variation of Smart City initiatives in different geographic locations. There are Smart City initiatives in both developed and developing countries, and Europe leads the way with 37 percent of initiatives found followed by Asia Pacific (28%), Africa (13%), North America (13%), and Latin America and Caribbean (9%). Most Smart City initiatives (25%) focused on Smart Living, i.e. how digital technology enables healthy and safe lifestyles; Smart Environment (21%), e.g. technology-enabled energy grids, waste management and other initiatives for reducing pollution; and Smart Economy (19%), e.g. technologyenabled production and delivery of products and services; and less on other initiatives, such as Smart Mobility (13%), i.e. technology-enabled and integrated transport and logistic systems; Smart Governance (13%), i.e. technology-enabled policy and governance processes; and Smart People (9%), e.g. people with e-skills, working on technology-enabled jobs. The majority of initiatives focused on one (40%) or two (24%) objectives and a few (8%) tried to balance all six objectives. The majority of initiatives (66%) are implemented by governments, followed by industry (19%) and NGOs (15%). Most were concerned with planning (60%), and the rest by implementation (40%). Interestingly, despite the discourse in the literature that contrasts topdown and bottom-up initiatives, it is clear that top-down or government-led initiatives (83%) are dominant, while only 17 percent are bottom-up or citizen-driven.

Smart Sustainable Cities in Developing Countries
Smart Cities have a lot of potential to improve the circumstances of developing countries. Yet given the relative newness of the concept, this potential is not fully realized in most developing countries. Several existing trends and structural factors could actually widen the gap between potential and reality:

 Weak research capacity hinders the contextualization required for Smart Sustainable City initiatives in developing countries. Smart City research is primarily conducted in developed countries: only 12 percent of the most published researchers are from developing countries, 33 percent of the most productive Smart City research institutions are in developing countries, only 13 percent of the countries leading Smart City research are developing countries.  { Smart City policy work is also primarily conducted in developed countries, with most policy organizations based in the United States (37%) and United Kingdom (14%), and only eight percent in developing countries like Chile, China, India or Russia. The lack of indigenous policy organizations means that developing countries tend to adopt policy frameworks provided by and tested in developed countries, which is not optimal for different country contexts and risks advancing the interests of provider countries over local interests. { Developing countries tend to pursue Smart People and Smart Governance dimensions less - arguably the areas of their most pressing need. The study found that Smart City developments in developing countries typically pursue Smart Environment, Smart Living and Smart Economy dimensions instead.  { Locally driven non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are important to balance commercial interests and deliver sustainable benefits to people, but according to the study developing countries have half the number of NGOs that developed countries have participating in Smart City initiatives.  { Developing countries have a two to one planning to implementation ratio among its Smart City initiatives, in contrast to the one to one ratio in developed countries. This highlights a need for research to inform Smart City planning in developing countries.  { Smart City initiatives in developing countries are typically top-down (government-led) rather than bottom-up (citizen-driven), constituting a potential issue with local relevance and sustainability.

Research Agenda
In order to realize the vision of the Smart Sustainable City, we propose a research agenda that adapts general knowledge to specific urban contexts, learns from application experience to improve general knowledge, and enables a transfer of applications between urban contexts: { Research problems must be policy relevant, address existing gaps or solve policy demands, apply multiple views to the issues at stake, and rely on available data and evidence to formulate findings. { Research should relate to at least two of the four p’s: people (e.g. citizens, governments, NGOs), problems (e.g. reducing commuting times), programs (e.g. urban regeneration) or phenomena (e.g. social polarization). Questions should examine whether a given problem affects a group of people, look at how a program solves a given problem, or analyse how a phenomenon produced by a given program affects a group of people. For example, research could assess the effectiveness of electronic surveillance in public spaces (program) for improving the safety (problem) of citizens (people). { Research problems should also relate to the intersection of the urbanization, digitization or sustainability, e.g. address particular urbanization issues through digital technology; or ensure social, economic and ecological sustainability in urban planning; or digitize an urban service delivery system to advance its sustainability. Example: design an e-learning platform (digitization) that helps citizens (sustainability) participate in urban planning (urbanization).

Smart Sustainable City research is inherently multi-disciplinary but could stand to branch out. Currently, it is mainly driven by technical disciplines like computer science (36%), engineering (22%) and mathematics (7%), though contributions from non-technical disciplines such as social sciences (10%), business, management and accounting (6%), and environmental science (4%) are on the rise.

Policy Recommendations
Following are a series of policy recommendations for Smart Sustainable Cities: { There are no off-the-shelf solutions for Smart Sustainable Cities. Every solution must to be adapted to and validated in the local context, and any strategy for implementing the Smart Sustainable City vision must be formulated and owned by the main city stakeholders. The vision should not focus merely on technological development, but also highlight improvements in the economic, social, cultural, ecological, and governance dimensions. Leveraging social and cultural changes introduced by the Smart Sustainable City transformation is an opportunity to instil civic values in the society. { As cities have different levels of maturity for different dimensions, the strategy should include having stakeholders agree on priority areas. Strategies should also be informed by the “urban metabolism”, i.e. how the city produces, transforms and consumes materials, energy, capital and other resources. Transformation should progress within and across these dimensions, and while progress is made in one dimension, it should not deteriorate in another. { Smart Sustainable Cities require a two-pronged approach: top-down (government-led) to build foundations, and bottom-up (community-driven) to conduct local sector-specific initiatives, such as delivering innovative services by local Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SME) based on open data.  { Government’s responsibility is to promote and stimulate bottom-up innovation. Measures could include living labs for co-creation, exploration, experimentation and evaluation of innovative ideas, scenarios and concepts, as well as testing technological instruments and artifacts in various real life usage scenarios. { Smart Sustainable Cities should include open government initiatives to ensure access to government data, to increase participation and to leverage innovation through public service co-creation. They should also rely on open, centralized and collaborative approaches to public and non-public service delivery. { To further the sustainability in Smart Cities, knowledge sharing platforms should be in place to promote good practices related to governance, transport, water, sewage, electricity, mobility, environment, urban planning, social cohesion, quality of life, citizen participation, digital infrastructure, and contextualization.

All of these recommendations require awareness of local context, policy and technical alternatives, and policy-relevant research to evaluate and decide among alternatives.

According to the United Nations, sustainable cities will be a major engine for pursuing the Sustainable Development Goals. As neither national, nor city governments can pursue such goals alone, urban sustainability is a major policy challenge for all levels of government. Any approach to addressing this challenge should utilize the potential of digitization to realize the vision of Smart Sustainable Cities.

1. Introduction
The rapid urban population growth taking place since the beginning of the last century creates unprecedented challenges for city governments and city residents alike; every second, the global urban population increases by 2 people (UNDESA 2015), cities account for 67% of the global energy demand (The World Bank 2014) and are responsible for up to 70% of the harmful greenhouse gases emissions (UN-HABITAT 2011). The population growth creates challenges on city infrastructure, on services like water, energy, transport and other, and on the management of the infrastructures and services.

Local governments are attempting to address the challenges of rapid urbanization through digital technology-enabled urbanization models, aimed at transforming cities to offer better services to residents and visitors. The approaches to such transformation have been evolving in the last years, from merely focusing on the deployment of technology to enhance service delivery, to improving the quality of life of urban residents through new technologies. Following the latter, the concept of Smart City has emerged, and Smart City initiatives are being implemented by many cities around the world.
The aim of this report is to explore the benefits, challenges and possible routes for Smart City innovations to further Sustainable Development objectives (called Smart Sustainable City in this report) in different local situations including institutional, socio-economic, political and cultural environment. Specific objectives pursued include: { Present the findings of research and policy literature reviews, as well as interviews with experts and practitioners who advance the Smart City concept in various development context, with a focus on, but not limited to developing countries.  { Identify and describe a set of case studies where Smart City innovations are employed in different Sustainable Development situations.  { Build an inventory of key Smart City implementations in developing countries, and actors involved in such implementations and research in developing countries.  { Propose and justify a set of policy alternatives and related research questions to inform the choice of different options that should be addressed in short- to medium- term in order to advance Sustainable Development objectives through Smart City.

In order to fulfill these objectives, a rigorous methodology was defined, including 1) research and policy literature reviews through quantitative and qualitative analysis based on narrative reviews of scientific publications and policy documents; 2) assessing the state of practice based on quantitative analysis of Smart City initiatives, and qualitative analysis of case studies and interviews with experts; 3) synthesizing the findings of the research and policy reviews and case study development into a conceptual framework for Smart Sustainable Cities; and 4) providing policy recommendations and a research agenda.

The main contributions of this work include: the findings from the quantitative analysis of Smart City research, including identification of researchers and think tanks, and locations where Smart City research is being conducted; identification of policy instruments and tools for Smart City initiatives; a repository of Smart City initiatives conducted by city governments from around the world to address Sustainable Development issues; a conceptual framework including instances for each construct of Smart Sustainable City; policy recommendations to advance Smart Sustainable City innovations; and a framework for defining a research agenda and populating this agenda with illustrative research problems.

The rest of the report is organized as follows. Section 2 presents background concepts. Section 3 explains project methodology. Section 4 introduces the research literature review. Section 5 describes the policy literature review. Section 6 analyzes Smart City initiatives and develops them into case studies. Based on the findings from the research and policy literature reviews and the lessons learnt from the case studies, a conceptual framework for Smart Sustainable Cities is introduced in Section 7 based on which policy recommendations are provided in Section 8 and a research agenda is outlined in Section 9.

2. Background
This chapter presents the background to the concepts of Smart Sustainable City explored in this report. In particular, it introduces the urbanization trend in Section 2.1, Sustainable Development Goals related to urbanization in Section 2.2, and how digitization gives rise to Digital Cities, Intelligent Cities and Smart Cities in Section 2.3.

Figure 1 depicts the content of this section and the whole report at the intersection of the Urbanization, Sustainability and Digitization domains. In particular, Section 2.1 concerns the Urbanization domain, Section 2.2 concerns the intersection of the Urbanization and Sustainability domains, Section 2.3 discusses the intersection of the Urbanization and Digitization domains, and the whole report concerns the intersection of all three domains.

Urbanization
Section 2.1
Section 2.2 Section 2.3
Figure 1: Urbanization, Sustainability and Digitization Domains
Sustainability Digitization
Smart Sustainable City

2.1. Urbanization
The aim of this section is to introduce the urbanization trend. To this end, Section 2.1.1 presents some figures about the urban population growth, Section 2.1.2 provides data about the growth of the world’s cities and Section 2.1.3 discusses urbanization challenges.

2.1.1. Urban Population Growth
Since the last century and particularly since the industrial revolution when people started to move to cities as a consequence of the shifts in major economic activities from agriculture to manufacturing to services, the world is experiencing a very fast urbanization process. While agricultural communities are usually rural and dispersed, since farmers need land for growing crops, industrial and post-industrial communities tend to live in densely-populated urban areas since manufacturing and service industries need suppliers and customers to produce and consume their products and services.
The percentage of population living in urban areas in Europe increased from 10.9% in 1800 to 32.8% in 1910; and in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA it increased from 5.5% to 41.6% (Bairoch and Goertz 1986) as shown in Figure 2. In 2008, for the first time in human history most of the human population lived in cities (UNDESA 2014b).

Following this trend, the urban population is expected to continue growing in the next decades. The United Nations forecasts that between 2014 and 2050 the world population will grow by 32%, i.e. from 7.2 to 9.6 billion (UNDESA 2007) while the urban population will grow by 63%, i.e. from 3.9 to 6.3 billion. As shown in Figure 3, the growth is expected to occur in developed, less developed and the least developed regions of the world (UNDESA 2014b).

2. Background
World More developed regions Less developed regions Least developed regions

Figure 3: Urban Population Growth in all Countries

In particular, poor, traditionally rural regions in Africa and Asia are becoming urban societies at a faster rate than the rich regions in Europe and North America (UNDESA 2013). The regional trend is depicted in Figure 4, with Africa and Asia expected to make the biggest advancement in the world towards urbanization between 2014 and 2050.

Figure 4: Urban Population Growth in Regions of the World

Table 1 presents some facts and figures related to urbanization (UNDESA 2014b).

Table 1: Urbanization Facts and Figures  { The world’s urban population grew from 746 million in 1950 to 3.9 billion in 2014. { In 2014, 54% of the world’s population lives in urban areas. { Despite the low levels of urbanization, Asia hosts 53% of the world’s urban population, followed by Europe at 14%, and Latin America and the Caribbean at 13%. { 37% of the world’s urban population growth between 2014 and 2015 will be due to: India at 404 million, China at 292 million and Nigeria at 212 million new urban residents. { The fastest growing urban agglomerations are cities with less than 1 million inhabitants located in Asia and Africa. { Close to half of the world’s urban population lives in cities of less than 500,000 inhabitants. { One in eight of the world’s urban citizens lives in one of the 28 mega cities with more than 10 million inhabitants. { By 2030, the world is projected to have 41 mega-cities with more than 10 million inhabitants. { As the world continues to urbanize, Sustainable Development challenges will be increasingly affecting cities, particularly in the lower-middle-income countries that experience the fastest urbanization rates.  { Integrated policies to improve the lives of both urban and rural populations are needed.

2.1.2. Growth of Cities
The world urban population growth translates into the growth of cities of all sizes. Figure 5 depicts the growth of the number of cities in four categories: between half and 1 million of inhabitants, between 1 and 5 million inhabitants, between 5 and 10 million inhabitants, and above 10 million inhabitants (UNDESA 2014c). The figure includes numbers from 1990 and 2014 and the projection for 2030. Going forward, the largest growth is expected in the biggest cities of over 10 million and between 5 and 10 million inhabitants (46% each), followed by cities between 0.5 and 1 million (39%) and cities between 1 and 5 million (34%).

Figure 5: Growth of Cities of Different Sizes

Such growth produced shifts in the definition of megacities. While in 2005 UNDESA considered all cities above 10 million inhabitants as megacities (UNDESA 2006), a few years later UN Habitat raised the bar for megacities to 20 million inhabitants (UN-HABITAT 2008).

2. Background
According to (UNDESA 2014c), in 1990 there were 10 megacities with a total of 153 million population (7% of the global urban population) while in 2014 there were 28 megacities with 453 million people in total (12% of the global urban population) as depicted in Figure 6. The trend is expected to continue with 41 megacities emerging by 2030.
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
Tokyo Delhi Shanghai Mexico City Sao Paulo Mumbai Osaka Beijing New York-Newark Cairo Dhaka Karachi Buenos Aires Calcutta Istanbul Chongqing Rio de Janeiro Manila Lagos Los Angeles Moscow Guangzhou Kinshasa Tianjin Paris Shenzhen London Jakarta

Figure 6: Megacities and their Populations in 2014

Figure 7 depicts the distribution of the 28 mega-cities across continents: 16 (57%) in Asia – Tokyo, Delhi, Shanghai, Mumbai, Osaka, Beijing, Dhaka, Karachi, Buenos Aires, Calcutta, Chongqing, Manila, Moscow, Guangzhou, Tianjin, Shenzhen and Jakarta; 4 (14%) in Latin America – Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires and Rio de Janeiro; 3 (11%) in Africa – Cairo, Lagos and Kinshasa; 3 in Europe – Istanbul, Paris and London; and 2 (7%) in North America – New York and Los Angeles. From the 28 mega-cities, only 6 (21%) are located in developed countries – Tokyo, Osaka, New York, Los Angeles, Paris and London; while 22 (79%) in developing countries.

 Africa, 3, 11%
 Asia, 16, 57%
 Europe, 3, 11%
 Latin America,  4, 14%
 North America, 2, 7%
 Developing countries, 22, 79%
 Developed countries, 6, 21%

Figure 7: Mega-Cities Per Continent and Per Developed-Developing Countries

2.1.3. Urbanization Challenges
Cities have several distinctive features compared to rural areas: higher concentration of people and fast population growth; manufacturing and services as the primary focus on economic activities; on average three times higher income than in rural areas in the same country; innovation enabled by the presence of universities, research centers and leading companies; regularly conducted cultural activities and significant number of venues where such activities can be performed like, e.g. theaters, cinemas and exhibition halls; and the presence of trading centers. In addition, research and development are mainly concentrated in cities, scientific innovations and engineering breakthroughs mainly occur in cities, and cities are places where most political affairs are settled down (Sacks 2015).

While most economic activities, i.e. about 80% of the world’s GDP, occur in cities, such development creates various challenges. For example, cities account for about two-thirds of the global energy demand and produce up to 70% of the global greenhouse gas emissions; with buildings alone accounting for roughly 40% of the world’s energy use and producing a fifth of the world’s CO2 emissions. In addition, there has been a sharp increase in instances of social instability in major cities across the world due to rising inequalities, unemployment and other factors. Air and water pollution, traffic congestion, and urban violence and crime also constitute major challenges to urban governments and policymakers.

Table 2 summarizes major urbanization challenges (UNDESA 2014b).

Table 2: Urbanization Challenges  { Humans have built cities for 3 billion people over the course of 3000 years. In the coming 30 years we will build cities for 3 billion more people (WWF Sweden 2012). { Every second, the urban population grows by 2 people (UNDESA 2015). { In Africa and Asia, the urban population is expected to double between 2000 and 2030 (UNDESA 2015). { 828 million people live in temporary housing, lacking basic services such as drinking water and sanitation. Each year, the figures increases by 6 more million people (UNDESA 2015). { 62% of the Sub-Saharan Africa urban population and 43% of the urban population of South-Central Asia lives in temporary housing (UNDESA 2015). { One in four urban citizens does not have access to improved sanitation (UNDESA 2015). { 27% of the urban population in the developing world has no access to piped water at home. { Cities account for about 67% of the global energy demand (The World Bank 2014). { Buildings represent about 40% of the total energy consumption (IEA 2015). { Cities are responsible for up to 70% of harmful greenhouse gases (UN-HABITAT 2011).

2.2. Urbanization and Sustainability
Based on the urbanization trends and challenges explained earlier, a key question for local governments, policymakers, planners and urban citizens is how to make cities sustainable. In short, a city is sustainable if it promotes various dimensions of sustainable development: { Economic – a city with a healthy, dynamic and responsible economy; { Social – a city promoting social inclusion and quality of life of its residents; { Environmental – a city adopting ecological practices to protect its environment; and  { Institutional – a city governed in transparent ways, while engaging its residents.
In addition, sustainable cities are resilient to natural and human-made disasters.

In order to pursue urban sustainability, city planning including provision of electricity, water, sewage, waste management and other utilities, digital and transport infrastructure, public services, education and governance is critical. Core city development issues should not be left to commercial interests only but treated and protected as public goods.

Given the global scale and impact of urbanization, and the difficulty of addressing urban challenges by local government acting alone, the United Nations Open Working Group on Sustainable Development has dedicated one of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to replace Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) when they complete in 2015 to urbanization. Specifically, the content of SDG11 is to “make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” (UN OWG 2015). Following (UN OWG 2015), seven targets defined to achieve this goals are listed in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Sustainable Development Goal on Urbanization 1. By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums. 2. By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons. 3. By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries. 4. Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage. 5. By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and decrease by [x]% the economic losses relative to gross domestic product caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations. 6. By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management. 7. By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities. a. Support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning. b. By 2020, increase by [x]% the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, develop and implement, in line with the forthcoming Hyogo Framework, holistic disaster risk management at all levels. c. Support the least developed countries, including through financial and technical assistance, in building sustainable and resilient buildings utilizing local materials.

In order to address the urban sustainability challenges outlined earlier, the urban development model was defined with ecological issues at the core, called Eco-City. The Eco-City model received various definitions including: “An ecologically healthy human settlement modeled on the self-sustaining resilient structure and function of natural ecosystems and living organisms.” (EcoCity Builders); or “A city built off the principles of living within the means of the environment.” (Wikipedia); or a city that “builds on the synergy and interdependence of ecological and economic sustainability, and their fundamental ability to reinforce each other in the urban context.” (The World Bank 2010). Examples of cities that implemented this model include: Guayaquil in Ecuador, Auroville in India, Stockholm in Sweden, Freiburg in Germany and Adelaide in Australia.

2.3. Urbanization and Digitization
To address some of the urbanization and sustainability challenges described in previous sections, cities around the world also started to develop different types of urbanization models strategically relying on the use of digital technologies. Depending on the city context, the vision of urban development and the way in which digital technology supports the city, such models are variably called Digital City, Intelligent City, Smart City or Eco City. Table 4 below presents some definitions of these models, drawing on existing research and policy literature, and illustrates them with examples of cities that adopted the models.

Table 4: Digital, Intelligent, Smart City and Eco City Concepts CONCEPT DESCRIPTION EXAMPLES DIGITAL CITY “creatively integrating telecommunications into urban policy and planning practices and strategies, in order to develop more inclusive and sustainable urban futures” (Nunes 2005) Mexico City, Mexico INTELLIGENT CITY “collection of intelligent buildings, shared car and cycle mobility schemes, and various interactive information systems for municipal and privately supplied services and governance, and often linked to the development systems for the ‘innovation economy’ ”. (Weinstock and Gharleghi 2013) Delivering services “using advanced technologies: an integration of a number of innovations including machine-to machine communication enabled by telematics, sensors and RFID technologies; smart grid technologies to enable better energy production and delivery; intelligent software and services; and high-speed communications technologies that serve as a core network for all related city, citizen and business services” (Accenture) Singapore, Singapore Amsterdam, Netherlands Manchester, UK Helsinki, Finland Neapolis, Cyprus SMART CITY Investing “in human and social capital and traditional (transport) and modern (ICT) communication infrastructure to fuel sustainable economic growth and a high quality of life, with a wise management of natural resources, through participatory governance” (Caragliu, Del Bo, and Nijkamp 2011) Utilizing “the opportunities presented by Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in promoting … prosperity and influence.” (Odendaal 2003) A city where “ICT is merged with traditional infrastructures, coordinated and integrated using new digital technologies.” (Batty et al. 2012) “a fusion of ideas about how information and communications technologies might improve the functioning of cities, enhancing their efficiency, improving their competitiveness, and providing new ways in which problems of poverty, social deprivation, and poor environment might be addressed” (Batty et al. 2012) Bangalore, India Cyberjaya, Malaysia Konza, Kenya Montevideo, Uruguay Bogotá, Colombia Medellín, Colombia Curitiba, Brazil Barcelona, Spain Skolkovo, Russia Seattle, USA New York, USA Hong Kong, China

2. Background
“user-centered evolution of the other city-concepts which seem to be more technological deterministic in nature.” (Schuurman, Baccarne, and De Marez 2012) “urban environment which, supported by pervasive ICT systems, is able to offer advanced and innovative services to citizens in order to improve the overall quality of their life“ (Piro et al. 2014) “a generic term to describe IT-based innovative urban ecosystems” (Gabrys 2014) “a high capacity for learning and innovation, which is built-in the creativity of their population, their institutions of knowledge creation, and their digital infrastructure for communication and knowledge management” (Allwinkle and Cruickshank 2011) (Tranos and Gertner 2012) “how investments in human and social capital and modern ICT infrastructure and e-services fuel sustainable growth and quality of life, enabled by a wise management of natural resources and through participative government” (Schaffers, Ratti, and Komninos 2012) “smart ability to deal with a city’s problems and provides citizens with a better living environment through intelligent accumulation and analysis of different kinds of data from the city’s routine operation based on advanced information technologies” (Wenge et al. 2014) ECO CITY “An ecologically healthy human settlement modeled on the self-sustaining resilient structure and function of natural ecosystems and living organisms.” (EcoCity Builders)  “A city built off the principles of living within the means of the environment.” (Wikipedia)  “An eco-city builds on the synergy and interdependence of ecological and economic sustainability, and their fundamental ability to reinforce each other in the urban context.” (The World Bank, 2010)

Guayaquil (Ecuador) Auroville (India) Stockholm (Sweden) Freiburg (Germany) Adelaide (Australia)

A Digital City is clearly based on the integration of digital technology into the city infrastructure, whereas Intelligent Cities and Smart Cities besides technology integration also include innovation, learning, knowledge creation and problem solving, while Eco-Cities emphasize balanced co-existence of nature-made and human-made environments. The major difference between Intelligent Cities and Smart Cities is the special focus of the latter on social and ecological aspects through people and environment dimensions. Table 5 illustrates the major differences between the four models of urbanization.

Table 5: Comparing Digital City, Intelligent City, Smart City and Eco-City Models DIGITAL CITY INTELLIGENT CITY SMART CITY ECO-CITY { Informatics (communication) { City portals for online information services { Intelligent systems (functionality) { Online web-based e-learning systems integrated and interoperable with other city platforms { Social and human concerns (quality of life) { Ecological systems (sustainability) { e-Learning platform and knowledge management { Advanced visualization and simulation tools { Benchmarking requirements { Natural eco-systems { Economic development while protecting the environment. Regardless of the urban development model adopted, however, city planning should address the issues of social inclusion, economic development and environmental protection, deploy public policies in pursuit of sustainability, and leverage digital technology in formulating and implementing such plans. An extremely important part of city planning is also learning from other cities, e.g., through the bench-learning, defining measurable goals and indicators, and deploying monitoring mechanisms to assess to what extent the goals are being met.

According to the United Nations (UNDESA 2014a), sustainable cities will be a major engine for pursuing Sustainable Development Goals (UN OWG 2015). As neither national, nor city governments can pursue such goals alone, urban sustainability is a major policy challenge for all levels of government. Any approach to addressing this challenge should fully utilize the potential offered by digitization and pursue a vision of Smart Sustainable City.

3. Methodology
The aim of this section is to explain the methodology that guided the conduct of research underpinning this report. The methodology comprises six main activities that are depicted in Figure 8 and described as follows: 1. Research Literature Review to identify and document the most significant research literature that shapes the Smart Sustainable City domain; 2. Policy Literature Review to identify and document the most significant policy literature including recommendations, initiatives and experiences produced by major international organizations and think tanks worldwide in the domain; 3. Case Study Development to document case studies of Smart City initiatives from around the world, including experiences of practitioners that implemented such initiatives, and creating a repository of Smart City initiatives; 4. Conceptual Framework to produce a conceptual framework to guide the process of planning, development and evaluation of Smart City initiatives based on the inputs obtained from research literature review, policy literature review and case study development activities; 5. Synthesis of Findings to produce a set of policy alternatives for policymakers and developers of Smart Sustainable City initiatives, and a research agenda to decide between such alternatives and support policy implementation; and 6. Validation of Findings to organize focus group meetings with policymakers, government practitioners and academic experts to discuss and provide feedback to the findings and validate them in the process.

4.3. Qualitative Analysis
This section presents the qualitative analysis of the content of 103 papers selected during data collection for detailed analysis. The analysis aimed at establishing if and how the selected papers address each of the 13 Smart City Attributes derived from the project’s terms of reference and further study. The result are outlined in subsequent sections: 1. Values – Section 4.3.1 2. Drivers – Section 4.3.2 3. Challenges – Section 4.3.3 4. Risks – Section 4.3.4 5. Regions – Section 4.3.5 6. Technologies – Section 4.3.6 7. Tools – Section 4.3.7 8. Approaches – Section 4.3.8 9. Stakeholders – Section 4.3.9 10. Governance – Section 4.3.10

4.3.1. Attribute 1 – Values
The Values Attribute captures what urban citizens and other city stakeholders expect to achieve from Smart City initiatives, i.e. what needs are important to them and what are acceptable ways of fulfilling such needs through Smart City initiatives. The Values Attribute is part of the Smart City context and is likely to change together with this context. A number of research papers further elaborate and in some cases provides concrete values to the Values Attribute. These research inputs are described below and summarized in Figure 24.

Improving sociable qualities of a city and increasing the citizens’ sense of belonging can be pursued by enriching urban social interactions with new technologies and by relying on Smart City infrastructure to empower social activities and enhance citizen participation (Christopoulou, Ringas, and Garofalakis 2014). Collaborative Smart City platforms can help generate social capital through inclusive decision-making, making it easier to institutionalize civic values for regeneration and self-sustainability of urban regions (Deakin and Al Waer 2011)302-320. The use of Smart City e-learning platforms to integrate knowledge transfer and capacity building can allow citizens, communities and organizations to collaborate in consensus, competency and skill-building for developing and regenerating sustainable urban regions (Allwinkle and Cruickshank 2011). The Smart City can give voice to citizens, gather them around collective goals, and involve in neighborhood-related issues (Hosio, Goncalves, and Kukka 2014). The incorporation of green urban plans and design strategies can result in more progressive, innovative and sustainable Smart Cities (Ercoskun 2010). Finally, from experience, issues like equity, inclusion, urban policy, user-driven innovation, integration and converging city infrastructure, Smart City implementation, sustainability and efficiency are current and hot topics in any Smart City agenda. 

Figure 24: State of Research Qualitative Analysis, Attribute 1 – Values

4.3.2. Attribute 2 – Drivers
The Drivers Attribute represents the factors that motivate, provide an impulse and enable the establishment and implementation of Smart City initiatives. Like the Values Attribute, Drivers are part of the Smart City context and are likely to change together with the context. A number of research papers provide further characterizations, describes possible approaches, and in some cases provides concrete values to this attribute. These research inputs are described below and summarized in Figure 25.

The optimization of city operations, the improvement of citizens’ quality of life and pursuing sustainable development are some of the main priorities of the Smart City concept (Sánchez et al. 2013). In addition, the main drivers include: building an image of modernity and smartness for city marketing campaigns; developing science parks, tech-cities and techno-pole centers; developing municipal and urban services using digital technology; improving economic and political efficiency; enabling social, cultural and urban development; developing an higher urban intelligence using digital technology to optimize urban management; and developing new forms interaction with citizens to foster their participation in decision- and policy-making processes (Batty et al. 2012). The characteristics of Smart City drivers include: the utilization of digital technology for city development; emphasis on business-led development; high-tech and creative industries for long-term growth; human capital in city development; and social, economic and environmental sustainability (Caragliu et al. 2011). The main driving forces for Smart City construction are the state and municipal governments, and enterprises (Glebova 2014).

 The development of older cities regenerating themselves as smart The development of new cities badging themselves as smart
 Optimization of city opretions Improvement of citizens’quality of life
 More sustainable development

 Building an image of smart for city marketing campaigns Development of urban and local services through ICT Dvelopment of science-parks, tech-cities, techno-poles The development of online and mobile forms of  participation Dvelopment of new urban intelligence through ICT Improvement of political efficiency Improvement of economic efficiency

 Social Cultural Urban
leveraging the use of ICTs for city development leveraging on human capital emphasis on business-led development long-term growth based on high-tech and creative industries
Approaches
Main drivers
Characteristics
Drivers

Figure 25: State of Research Qualitative Analysis, Attribute 2 – Drivers

4.3.3. Attribute 3 – Challenges
The Challenges Attribute represents the barriers and obstacles related to the establishment and implementation of Smart City initiatives, due to the social, economic, political, etc. environment. Like Values and Drivers, Challenges is part of the Smart City context and is likely to change together with this context. A number of research papers further elaborate and in some cases provides concrete values to this attribute. These research inputs are described below and summarized in Figure 26.

With the advent of Smart City, several technological, social, economic and environmental challenges arose at different levels (Ercoskun 2010). At the technological level it is necessary to develop an integrated city infrastructure and an integrated platform at the top for operational functions, management, and control, and optimize resources use; to optimize such use, all systems must be integrated but this integration of city systems into one self-adaptable and self-managed “system of systems” working efficiently and autonomously is missing. The effective integration of city systems remains a challenge due partly to different discourse used by technology- and policy-makers, making difficult the dialogue and reaching consensus about the best technology solutions. The challenge goes well beyond technology and economy as a cultural change is also required to build sustainable Smart Cities.

Specific technological challenges include machine-to-machine communications, security, spectrum utilization, intelligent information networks, and interconnection of a set of standards to achieve system interoperability. At the social level, the main challenges are: reinforcement of social and territorial cohesion; ensuring equity, fairness and the existence of active labor markets; provision of better quality of life; and improvements in citizen involvement, interaction and participation in political and decision-making process (Ojo, Curry, and Janowski 2014). A challenge is also to define suitable quality of life indicators for policymakers to help improve city life and to benchmark the efforts by different cities (Craglia et al. 2004). At the economic level, the key challenge is improving the competitiveness of the local economy against international markets to develop a Smart City strategy with knowledge of its relative position in the global urban networks (Tranos and Gertner 2012). At the environmental level, the main challenge is to assure environmental sustainability by making decisions that protect the natural environment and make efficient use of available resources, or, at least, reduce the impact of such decisions (A. Mulligan and Olsson 2013) (Yamauchi, Kutami, and Konishi-Nagano 2014).

 Development of an integrated city infrastructure Dvelopment of an integrated platform Optimization of the use of resources  Recquires system integration
 Reinforcement of social and territorial cohesion Ensure equity and fairness Existence of activite labour markets
 Providing better quality of life 
 Improving citizens’ participation
 Software System Challenges
 security spectrum utilization information networks with intelligent  functions standards for interoperability machine-to-machine communication
Making decisions to protect natural resources Ensuring efficient use of available resources Reduce negative impacts of  decisions affecting available resources
Improve local competitiveness against regional and international markets
Environmental
Technological
Social
Economic
Challenges
 Defining indicators Comparison with other cities

Figure 26: State of Research Qualitative Analysis, Attribute 3 – Challenges

4.3.4. Attribute 4 – Risks
The Risks Attribute represents possible occurrence of undesirable and potentially damaging consequences of Smart City initiatives and how such consequences could be avoided, minimized or managed. Like Values, Drivers and Challenges, the Risks Attribute is part of the Smart City context and is likely to change together with this context. A number of research papers further elaborate and provide concrete values to this attribute. These research inputs are described below and summarized in Figure 27.

The development of a Smart City is not a simple mathematical sum of smart features; the policies, technologies and plans must be oriented towards common objectives, otherwise the risk of Smart City development being compromised will be considerable (Perillo 2013). The implementation of Smart Cities should not be driven by specific and personal objectives, strategies, ideologies and interests, or by restrictive visions centered in technological solutions without taking into account social-environmental concerns, i.e. neglecting the legal, social and ethical impact of technologies (Galdon-Clavell 2013) (Anttiroiko, Valkama, and Bailey 2013). Smart City development requires interdisciplinary work, critical analysis of best practices, knowing the requirements, understanding the engineering processes and introducing risk modelling (Liu, Wei, and Rodriguez 2014). It is important to know the risks and the social, economic and environmental benefits associated with different Smart City features. In order to avoid potential risks in Smart City development, the following should be taken into account (Bianchini and Avila 2014) (Granath and Axelsson 2014) (Nam and Pardo 2014): clearly identifying hidden risks behind decisions, mainly when they are only justified with technical arguments; guaranteeing independent and equal access to administrative and justice services; avoiding the manipulation of information and the resulting distortion of reality; avoiding biased information that could overshadow the real benefits of Smart Cities; introducing ethical dimension in all decision and operational processes; considering human rights implications and technological risks; avoiding lack of communication between city and citizens and illinformed citizens; avoiding the risk that Smart City pursues economic goals without addressing sustainability concerns; discussing the use of digital technology in different contexts to avoid counterproductive and unsustainable technological solutions; analyzing infrastructure costs, ecological concerns and political limitations; addressing the risk of surveillance and invisible networks threatening citizens; resolving data security, data sharing and ethics problems; and mitigating inter-organizational tension and conflicts.
 Identifying hidden risks Guaranteeing independent and equal access  to justice and services Avoiding the manipulation of delivered information that could distort reality Avoinding biased information Introducing ethical dimension Considering human-rights implications and risks of technologies Avoiding lack of communication between city and citizens Avoiding pursuing only economic goals without concerning about sustainability Addressing lack of discussions on the use of ICTs Carefully analyzing infrastructure costs, ecological concerns and political implications Adressing concerns about massive develoyment of ICTs (surveillance and invisible networks) Resolving security problems – data security, data sharing, ethics Mitigating possible inter-organizational tension and conflicts Keeping awareness about the duality of introducing new technologies

Strategy
Risks
Considering only smart (technology) features
Not integrating policies, technologies and city plans
Not considering social-environmental concerns
Neglecting legal, social and ethical impact of technologies
Initiatives driven by restrictive visions centered only in technology
Initiatives driven by specific and personal objectives, strategies, ideologies, and political interests

Figure 27: State of Research Qualitative Analysis, Attribute 4 – Risks

4.3.5. Attribute 5 – Regions
The Regions Attribute represents how a city’s Smart City initiatives are informed by its history and unique path to development, and how they could be benchmarked against other cities in the region. Like Values, Drivers, Challenges and Risks, the Regions Attribute is part of the Smart City context and likely to change together with it. A number of research papers further elaborate and provide concrete values to this attribute. These research inputs are described below and summarized in Figure 28. Smart City initiatives are intrinsically related to the city’s organizational culture, priorities, objectives and strategic vision (Odendaal 2003). The problems to tackle are different from region to region, varying according to industrial and political history, culture, geography, topology and local, national and international policies (Dodgson and Gann 2011). The city’s economic development, its urban structure and geography, human capital, and citizens’ needs and aspirations also influence the Smart City strategy (Kakarontzas et al. 2014). The city should be framed into the local characteristics and conserve the urban heritage as its identity but it should be also aware of its inter-urban dependencies because it is not possible to develop a smart strategy without knowing the relative position of the city in the global urban network (Weinstock and Gharleghi 2013). Regarding technological development, an organization that will deliver technology for a Smart City project should develop a specific and appropriate solution to the reality of the city in question (Paroutis, Bennett, and Heracleous 2014).

Problems are different from region to region
Smart City Initiatives
Differences
 Industrial history Poltical history Culture Topology Geography Local, national and international policies
Should conserve the urban heritage as identify
Should be framed into the local characteristics
ICT sould deliver an  appropriate solution for the city in question
Should konw its inter.urban dependencies and context
Related to municipality’s organizational culture, priorities, objectives and strategic vision
Influenced by:
 City economic development Urban structure Geography Human Capital
To know the relative position of the city in the global urban network
Regions

Figure 28: State of Research Qualitative Analysis, Attribute 5 – Regions

4.3.6. Attribute 6 – Technologies
The Technologies Attribute represents the presence of disruptive digital technologies, how they can generate public value, and what is required to apply them in the Smart City context. Unlike previous attributes, the Technologies Attribute is not part of the Smart City context, but an input to Smart City transformation. A number of research papers further elaborate and provide concrete values to this attribute. These research inputs are described below and summarized in Figure 29.

According to (Schaffers et al. 2012), the Smart City concept is a new approach to urban development, focused on how digital technology can be used to enhance citizens’ quality of life. These technologies include mobile phones, sensor networks, big data, grids, cloud services, Internet of Things, etc. all joined to the common Internet infrastructure to enable the interconnection of people, objects and city systems around a city platform. In order to lead to successful Smart City implementations, this interconnection requires systems thinking and continuous engineering (Amaba 2014). It is possible to forecast a ubiquitous city with technological equipment and pervasive services for citizens (Gabrys 2014). A real promise of Smart City initiatives is that digital technologies can be used to enhance equity and fairness and to promote citizen participation and social inclusion in the urban space (Kourtit, Nijkamp, and Arribas 2012). Technological trends relevant to Smart City initiatives include open source software, web services, geo-informatics and ubiquitous technologies (Anttiroiko et al. 2013).

Technology waves
New Trends
Public Value
Requirements
Applications
ICTs
Technology
Mobile phones Sensor networks Big Data Grids Cloud Services Satellite TVs Computer Networks Internet of Things (IoT)
Systems Thinking Continuous Reengineering
Internet services Electronic commerce Pervasive services
ensure equity ensure fairness promote citizens’ participation promote social inclusion
Open Source Software Web Services Geo-Informatics Ubiquitous Technologies

An increase in communication bandwidth, wider coverage with broadband connections, and the development of Content Management Systems (CMS) By 2009 the turn to embedded systems and  wireless networks marked a new set of technologies for creating the digital space of cities The World Wide Web initiated in 1990s

Figure 29: State of Research Qualitative Analysis, Attribute 6 – Technologies

4.3.7. Attribute 7 – Tools
The Tools Attribute represents various conceptual, technical and methodological guides and instruments, many available on digital platforms, to support planning and implementation of Smart City initiatives. Like Technologies, the Tools Attribute is an input to Smart City transformation. A number of research papers further elaborate and provide concrete values to this attribute. These research inputs are described below and summarized in Figure 30.

A Smart City model is a tool for city modernization and social mobilization driven by a set of urban development goals. In addition, simulation, modelling and virtual reality tools could help in the creation of Smart Cities (Dodgson and Gann 2011). Such tools enable predicting the behavior of real city systems to better plan and design the future Smart City systems (Wenge et al. 2014) (Cohen, Money, and Quick 2014). The living labs and test beds are also powerful tools to view how user-driven open innovation could be organized and influence Smart City development (Schaffers et al. 2012) (Veeckman and van der Graaf 2014). The massive sensing and data collection through sensor networks could help understand how city works and to improve services to citizens with context-aware information. An example is the “Innovation Technology” tool that enables the virtualization of city systems and services (Gann, Dodgson, and Bhardwaj 2011). The capacity to virtually represent cities, plans and options leads to better understanding of strategies and designs, and enables the implementation of more sustainable city solutions.

4. Research Literature Review

Enables the virtualization of city systems and services Developed by IBM and Laing O’Rourke
To better plan and design smart city systems To predict behavior of smart cities To understand how a city works To improve services with context aware information To better understand the design strategy To view how user drive open innovation ecosystems behave and could be organized
Figure 30: State of Research Qualitative Analysis, Attribute 7 – Tools

4.3.8. Attribute 8 – Approaches
The Approaches Attribute represents the fundamental decisions, supported by practical, methodological or even philosophical arguments, concerning how Smart City transformation will be planned and carried out. Unlike Technologies and Tools, the Approaches Attribute is not part of inputs to Smart City transformation, but part of the transformation itself. A number of research papers further elaborate and provide concrete values to this attribute. These research inputs are described below and summarized in Figure 31.

Two fundamental approaches to the planning and implementation of Smart City initiatives are top-down and bottom-up (Veeckman and van der Graaf 2014). In the top-down approach, city government drives the Smart City implementation strategy, accompanied by incentives, funding and publicity to help adoption of Smart City plans. This approach tends to lead to a more technical vision of Smart City implementation (Lee, Hancock, and Hu 2013). In the bottom-up approach, planning processes are based on contribution from citizens, creative communities, research institutions and the private sector, and market-oriented partnerships between public and private sectors are created to support sustainable city development. This approach tends to lead to greater engagement of citizens with the Smart City strategy because they are more involved in decision-making process (Schaffers et al. 2012). The bottom-up approach, driven by citizens and enterprises, seems to be consensual in the literature. The role of governments is to facilitate consensus-building and act as a mediator between all parties concerned. However, bringing the Smart City subject into the political arena to discuss different priorities and possible development alternatives is important.

No matter which approach is used, there are currently few cases of Smart City strategies and their outcomes. Furthermore, there is no clear vision on how Smart Cities are being implemented in practice and what are the best policies and strategies to explore the digital infrastructures. A review of best practices for Smart City implementations is fundamental to learn from the past before the implementation of new Smart City projects takes place (Girard 2013).

Top-Down
Bottom-Up
Approaches
The strategy is driven by government Government provides incentives and funding Government provides publicity to help adoption Tends to provide a more technical vision
Creative communities Research institutions Private sector
City processes based on the contributions of various actors
Market-oriented Public-Private-Partnerships (PPPs) are created Tends to conduct more citizens’ engagement

Figure 31: State of Research Qualitative Analysis, Attribute 8 – Approaches

4.3.9. Attribute 9 – Stakeholders
The Stakeholders Attribute represents all parties, including public, private and voluntary sectors with interest and concern in Smart City initiatives and their progress and outcomes. Like Approaches, the Stakeholders Attribute is part of Smart City transformation. A number of research papers further elaborate and provide concrete values to this attribute. These research inputs are described below and summarized in Figure 32.

Engaging relevant stakeholders, both public and private, around common city objectives is a crucial requirement for the success of Smart City projects. Sustainable Smart Cities will emerge from strong publicprivate partnerships, which partnerships coordinate the use of city resources and the organization of city activities in dynamic, open and innovative ways (Komninos, Pallot, and Schaffers 2012). Given the variety of actors involved in Smart City projects, the collaboration, networking and interaction between all partners is fundamental (Schaffers et al. 2012). A Smart City developed on the basic level of maturity has three main stakeholders: municipality including different municipal departments as the project owner; enterprises as project performers; and strategic partners including research institutions and Internet, energy, water and other media providers (Granath and Axelsson 2014). Smart Cities should involve citizens as the main stakeholders, engaging them in the design of city projects and services through crowdsourcing, social networks, gamification and other interactive technologies (Schuurman et al. 2012). The Smart City concept also introduces the notion of customers as stakeholders to include citizens, visitors and organizations. In order to provide the best services to customers, their different needs and preferences should be taken into account in planning and design of Smart City projects (Steyaert 2000). As Smart City projects have a vision of economic growth and are oriented on environmental, economic and social sustainability goals, paying special attention to the quality of life issues, collaboration among different industries and national and local governments is required.

4. Research Literature Review
Major Stakeholder
Common Stakeholder
Other Stakeholder
Stakeholders
Interact Network Collaborate
Municipal Government Project Owner Enterprises Project Performers
Strategic Partners
Citizen
Active Participation in the Design
Citizens Foreigners Non Government Organizations (NGOs) Private Organizations
Crowdsourcing Gamification Social Networks
Internet Service Providers (ISP) Water Providers Energy Providers, etc
Customers

Figure 32: State of Research Qualitative Analysis, Attribute 9 – Stakeholders

4.3.10. Attribute 10 – Governance
The Governance Attribute represents how the Smart City government operates, how it manages public funds, how it delivers public infrastructure and services, how it supports sustainable city development, and how it engages its citizens in decision-making processes. Like Approaches and Stakeholders Attributes, the Governance Attribute is part of Smart City transformation. A number of research papers further elaborate and provide concrete values to this attribute. These research inputs are described below and summarized in Figure 33.

The public governance in a city and the delivery of public services should be provided in efficient, effective, transparent, open and collaborative ways (Kitchin 2013). Centralized and comprehensively strategized e-governance should allow for more effective and optimized coordination and control of Smart City functions and operations (Lee et al. 2013). Organizational integration with digital platforms is essential to enhancing local government and the creation of one central agency to drive e-governance operations is a possible option to achieve such integration (Odendaal 2003). Some of the key aspects of governance include a strong Smart City leadership operating within a well designed governance model; a centralized Smart City strategy with a holistic view in the city; a dedicated organization for the development of Smart City projects; resilient decision and implementation processes; governance principles; and performance measurements of city services (Lee and Hancock 2012).

Figure 33: State of Research Qualitative Analysis, Attribute 10 – Governance

4.3.11. Attribute 11 – Maturity Models
The Maturity Models Attribute represents the advancement of Smart City development along a series of discrete maturity stages, the achievement of higher stages representing a significant advancement compared to the lower stages. Like the Approaches, Stakeholders and Governance Attributes, the Maturity Models Attribute is part of Smart City transformation. A number of research papers further elaborate and provide concrete values to this attribute. These research inputs are described below and summarized in Figure 34.
Assessing the level of Smart City maturity requires models to measure the level of smartness of a city, and require defining levels of maturity for comparing cities that pursue similar smartness objectives (Maccani, Donnellan, and Helfert 2014). A Smart City maturity model, besides assessing the readiness of a city for Smart City transformation, guides the choice of the city’s priority domains and build the guidelines for Smart City implementation.

Developed by IBM, a set of tools for understanding the situation of a city and designing Smart City plans includes: 1) Smarter City Assessment to collect information about operating systems; 2) Smarter City Maturity Model to assess and build a road map for the city; 3) Smarter City Actionable Business Architecture to define the relationships between different city domains, e.g. strategy, operating and technology; and 4) Municipal Reference Model to describe a set of concepts, tools, and services offered by the city (Huestis and Snowdon 2011).

The Scottish Government developed a Smart Cities Maturity Model and a city self-assessment tool (The Scottish Government, Scottish Cities Alliance, and UrbanTide 2015). The Maturity Model comprises six maturity levels: ad-hoc, opportunistic, purposeful, repeatable, operationalized and optimized, evaluated considering five dimensions: strategic intent, data, technology, governance and service delivery models, and citizen and business engagement. The stages of the self-assessment tool determine the level of maturity achieved in different dimensions and to what extent these dimensions should be further developed. The SelfAssessment Tool has three stages that must to be assessed by filling a questionnaire.

The Indian Government developed a Smart City Maturity Model to establish metrics to assess the smartness of the Indian cities and their readiness for Smart City projects (Sustainable Business Leadership Forum 2014). The model has four levels from basic urban services to high urban resilience: access, efficiency, behavior and systems focus. The model was applied to transport, spatial planning, water supply, sewerage and sanitation, storm water drainage, solid waste management, electricity, telephone connections, and Wi-Fi connectivity.

4. Research Literature Review
IBM Analysis Tools
Government of Scotland and Scottish Cities Alliance
Government of India
Maturity Models
To assess the readiness of the city To measure city smartness To mesasure level of maturity when compared with other cities To help choosing the priority domains for a city To build the guides for smart city implementation
Smart Cities Maturity Model
Level 1: Ad-hoc Level 2: Opportunistic Level 3: Purposeful and Repeatable Level $: Operationalized Level 5: Optimized 1. Strategic Intent 2. Data 3. Technology 4. Governance and Service Delivery Models 5. Citizens and Business Engagement

1. Access 2. Efficiency 3. Behaviour 4. System Focus Transport Spatial Planning Storm Water Drainage Water Supply Solid Waste Management Sewerage Electricity Telephone Wi-Fi areas Self-Assessment Tool  3 stages to be completed through a questionnaire
Smarter City Assessment  Collecting information about operating systems Smarter City Maturity Model  Assessing and building a roadmap for the city Smarter City Actionable Business Architectute  Defining relationships between different city domains Municipal Reference Model  Describing set of concepts and tools, and offered services

Figure 34: State of Research Qualitative Analysis, Attribute 11 – Maturity Models

4.3.12. Attribute 12 – Innovations
The Innovations Attribute represents the capacity of a Smart City for creating and realizing new ideas, processes, services, etc. around the use of digital technologies to address existing needs or utilize new opportunities and create an impact on the city. Unlike the Approaches, Stakeholders, Governance and Maturity Models Attributes that belong to Smart City transformation, the Innovations Attribute belongs to Smart City outcomes. A number of research papers further elaborate and provide concrete values to this attribute. These research inputs are described below and summarized in Figure 35.

A Smart City could be understood as an open ecosystem that hosts user-driven innovation processes where citizens create and foster innovations to improve their quality of life. Within this concept, innovation is a new way of performing city operations to pursue significant improvements in health care, social inclusion, environment, business and other areas. However, there is little experience in building innovative processes in complex systems with significant numbers of variables like Smart Cities (Dodgson and Gann 2011). To ensure sustainable urban futures, cities should innovate in internal planning, management and operations (Zygiaris 2012) (Naphade et al. 2011). The resources required to realize Smart City as an innovation laboratory include test beds, living labs and crowdsourcing (Schuurman et al. 2012) as well as user communities. In particular, test beds and living labs are useful tools for deploying, organizing and comparing user-driven open innovation ecosystems (Schaffers et al. 2011). To foster the creation of innovation ecosystems, governments could create incentives and provide policy support to the industries related to technological innovation (Wang, Chen, and Zheng 2014).

User-driven Innovation Processes
Open Eco-Systems
Resources
Innovations
Test beds Living Labs Crowdsourcing User Communities Technology Infrastructure Software Knowledge Information
Deployed Organized Compared Test Beds Living Labs Incentives Policies
Needs to be
Tools to Be Applied
Can be fostered through
New ways of doing city processes

Figure 35: State of Research Qualitative Analysis, Attribute 12   – Innovations

4.3.13. Attribute 13 – BenefitsThe Benefits Attribute represents a range of positive outcomes obtained by the city and its various stakeholders, directly or indirectly due to its transformation into a Smart City. Like Innovations, the Benefits Attribute belongs to Smart City outcomes. A number of research papers further elaborate and provide concrete values to this attribute. These research inputs are described below and summarized in Figure 36.

At its origin, the Smart City concept is an urban development strategy that relies on digital technology to enhance citizens’ quality of life and allow them to become innovation agents. The main benefits of a Smart City is to foster economical and sustainable development of cities while protecting their environment (Kurebayashi et al. 2011). The benefits of Smart Cities for citizens include enhanced quality of life, good public transport, efficient management of urban space and communications (Dewalska–Opitek 2014). The creation of an intelligent human society inhabiting Smart Cities and powered by digital technology, allows the development of sustainable cities in terms of environmental protection and economic and technological growth (Uzumaki 2014). In addition, the pervasive characteristic of data and services offered by digital technologies like e.g. the Internet of Things could help to bind disperse and separate communities, improve the interaction and involvement of citizens, offer new and enhanced city services, and provide a holistic and context-aware view on city operations (Walters 2011).

According to (Kessides 2013), expected benefits of Smart Cities for citizens, local authorities, local economy and various intersections of these domains include: 1) for citizens – flexibility, social cohesion, lifelong learning opportunities, better community connectivity, improved health conditions and independence, and increased employment opportunities; 2) for local authorities – cost reduction, improved government transparency, increased collaboration, improved decision making, knowledge dissemination, experience dissemination and improved work efficiency; 3) for local economy – promoting innovation, catalyzing development of products and services, engaging and leveraging small- and medium-size enterprise community, and accelerate new business start-ups; 4) for citizens and local authorities – participation in public life, resilient public services and social equality; 5) for citizens and local economy – increased economic activity; 6) for local authorities and local economy – leveraging public funding and increased inward investment and 7) for all citizens, local authorities and local economy altogether – improved resource efficiency, sustainable mobility, environmental sustainability and economic prosperity.

4. Research Literature Review
To enhance citizens’ lives
To foster sustainable development
To promote technological growth
To improve citizens’ interactions and involvement
To provide context-aware and holistic view of city operability
To provide good public transport

Benefits Domains
To foster economic development
To protect the environment
To empower citizens as innovating agents
To bind disperse and separate communities
To offer new and enhanced city services
To make efficient use of urban space
To provide good communications

Benefits
local authorities local economy citizens

Figure 36: State of Research Qualitative Analysis, Attribute 13  – Benefits

5. Policy Literature Review
This section presents an overview of the Smart City policy literature proposed by relevant think tank, research and international organizations, and governments. The section describes the process applied to carry out data collection in Section 5.1, followed by the quantitative analysis of the Smart City policy organizations including their types, locations, policy mandates and policy areas in Section 5.2, and the qualitative analysis of the relevant Smart City policy literature along 13 Smart City attributes derived from the project’s terms of reference, and produced by such organizations in Section 5.3.

5.1. Data Collection
The aim of the data collection task was twofold. First, to identify influential sources of Smart City policy literature including relevant think tank, research and international organizations, as well as governments active in the area. Second, to identify relevant policy literature produced by such organizations that focused on the topic of Smart Cities.

The first step involved conducting a Google search for the relevant organizations using a combination of “think tank”, “research center”, “smart city” and “Smart Cities” keywords. In total, 51 organizations were identified in this way, and for each organization the information was collected about its name, goal, work areas, location and the webpage. In turn, the work areas involved determining the presence of the organization in one or more of the Smart City dimensions: economy, governance, mobility, environment, living and people. The data was analyzed quantitatively and the findings are described in Section 5.2.

The second step involved exploring directly the websites of the organizations identified in the first step including the World Bank, International Telecommunication Union (ITU), European Commission (EC), International Organization for Standardization (ISO), International Electro-Technical Commission (IEC) and others, to collect information about Smart City policies. In addition, a Google search was conducted for relevant documents using a combination of “smart city”, “policy” and “policies” keywords. During this step, nine documents were collected and summarized. The documents were analyzed qualitatively, the findings are described in Section 5.3 and the summaries are included in Appendix D.

5. Policy Literature Review

5.2. Quantitative Analysis
This section presents the findings of the quantitative analysis of the identified Smart City policy organizations, i.e. think tank, research, international and government organizations active in producing Smart City policy literature.

The analysis starts in Section 5.2.1 by listing the organizations and determining their types and locations, followed by the analysis of the Smart City policy mandates pursued by such organizations in Section 5.2.2, followed by Smart City policy focus covered by them according to well-known six Smart City dimensions, i.e. economy, governance, mobility, environment, living and people in Section 5.2.3.

The tools applied to conduct the analysis presented in this section were: Google Search Engine, Mendeley, XMind, Excel, Wordle and TagCrowd .

Figure 42 depicts the percentages of organizations covering different Smart City dimensions. Although all six dimensions receive attention from similar numbers of organizations, three dimensions receive slightly more attention than others, i.e. Living (67%), Environment (59%) and People (57%). This preference is aligned with the Smart City citizen-driven approach discussed in (Mulder 2014).

5.3.1. Attribute 1 – Values
The Values Attribute captures what urban citizens and other city stakeholders expect to achieve from Smart City initiatives, i.e. what needs are important to them and what are acceptable ways of fulfilling such needs through Smart City initiatives. The Values Attribute is part of the Smart City context and is likely to change together with this context. A number of policy papers further elaborate and in some cases provides concrete values to the Values Attribute. These policy inputs are described below.

ITU proposed a value framework to guide Smart City initiatives using four dimensions: 1) economy – “The city must be able to thrive – jobs, growth, finance”; 2) governance – “The city must be robust in its ability in administrating policies and pulling together the different elements”; 3) environment – “The city must be sustainable in its functioning for future generations” and 4) society – the city is for its inhabitants (the citizens)” (ITU 2014a). ITU also highlights that in traditional approaches to urban development, all infrastructure systems are managed in silos, with little communication and information sharing among and across government agencies and the civil society. Therefore, it recommends to adopt a holistic approach to create multiple infrastructures, strengthen the motivation for government participation, apply technologies, and integrate various smart infrastructure management systems, all combined with citizen collaboration (ITU 2014a).

The UK Government recommends that city authorities be open to learning from and with others, to experiment with different approaches and business models, and to demonstrate urban performance through citizen dashboards (UK Department for Business Innovation & Skills 2013). The Indian Government also recommends that making city performance information available to citizens will create a strong incentive to improving such performance, and that involving citizens in city activities and informing them about the efforts and the reasons for such initiatives will help overcome resistance to change, facilitate civic discipline and help carry out activities (Sridhar and Sridhar 2011).

5.3.2. Attribute 2 – Drivers
The Drivers Attribute represents the factors that motivate, provide an impulse and enable the establishment and implementation of Smart City initiatives. Like the Values Attribute, Drivers are part of the Smart City context and are likely to change together with this context. A number of policy papers provide characterization, describe approaches, and in some cases provide concrete values to this attribute. These policy inputs are described below.

5. Policy Literature Review
ITU advocates that economy, governance, environment and people are four main drivers of Smart City initiatives (ITU 2014a), it highlights that a Smart Sustainable City has sustainable urban development through the use of digital technology without degrading the quality of life of urban citizens as its end goal.

IBM highlights the economy as the main driver due to large scale investments, business networks and innovation-friendly environment (Dirks, Gurdgiev, and Keeling 2010). Sustainable city development to benefit citizens, the economy and the environment is another driver (Schaefer 2011). CISCO advocates that the most significant drivers for a Smart City is city infrastructure including energy, mobility, water, waste management and other systems, and the main reasons for Smart City development are: deteriorating city infrastructures, global business and economic development, charging fees, strengthening financial stability and improving job conditions (You and Learn 2014). The CityNext initiative emphasizes safety, education and health drivers (Microsoft 2014).

According to the UK Government, the main urban drivers are making cities more liveable and resilient, and able to respond quickly to changes in their environment (UK Department for Business Innovation & Skills 2013) while the Scottish Government promotes the vision of becoming a world leading digital nation (The Scottish Government et al. 2015). Finally, the Government of India formulated a number of Smart City drivers: 1) attracting investment and talent; 2) improving competitiveness to create jobs; 3) providing social, environmental and financial sustainability; and 4) improving quality of life including safety, security, inclusiveness, entertainment, public services, healthcare, education, transparency, accountability and governance participation (Government of India 2014).

5.3.3. Attribute 3 – Challenges
The Challenges Attribute represents the barriers and obstacles related to the establishment and implementation of Smart City initiatives, due to the social, economic, political, etc. environment. Like Values and Drivers, Challenges is part of the Smart City context and is likely to change together with this context. A number of policy papers elaborate and in some cases provides concrete values to this attribute. These policy inputs are described below.

Concerning social challenges, the fast growth of cities will give rise to significant inequalities in productivity and income inside and across cities, and between rural and urban cities (Commission On Growth And Development et al. 2009). As a result, policymakers will face political and ethnical tensions which must be balanced with economic benefits. The tensions and difficulties in achieving efficient urban development, which entails some kind of equilibrium between wage, cost of living and labor supply, lead developing countries to resist fast urbanization, viewing it as unmanageable pathology. According to (ISO 2013a), cities must provide quality of life to their citizens, while simultaneously dealing with the pressures of population growth, urbanization and climate change.

Concerning environmental challenges, generation of waste is rapidly increasing in quantity and complexity along with the urbanization growth – the solid waste will reach a peak in 2100, and collecting and disposing such waste will have a tremendous impact on municipal budgets (Commission On Growth And Development et al. 2009). According to the World Bank (The World Bank 2013), the carbon emissions due to urban transport will increase exponentially as demands for private transportation in developing countries will grow. New transport policies to provide viable alternatives to automobile transport are required, as is the need for cities to reduce carbon emissions. Cimate change adaptation and resilience, however, are not yet integrated in urban planning. Local government efforts towards policies to mitigate climate change and strengthen climate action are critical. According to (ITU 2014a), urbanization adds pressure on resources and increases consumption of energy, water, sanitation, public services, education and healthcare. As social, economic and environment dimensions are interconnected, urbanization will contribute to environmental degradation on the local, regional and global scales – cities are responsible for 70% of the global gas emissions and 60%-80% of the energy consumption.

Concerning financial, organizational and technological challenges, according to CISCO (You and Learn 2014), funding is by far the biggest challenge of cities and the officials need to find the right financial mechanisms for short- and long-term Smart City projects. Internal organization challenges such as the lack of crossdepartmental coordination alignment are also highlighted. The European Commission’s “Citizen Science and Smart Cities Report” emphasizes the challenge of integrating all quantitative and qualitative data from heterogeneous sources including Citizen Science and Smart City projects and connecting them with analytical models as currently “there is little interoperability and reusability of the data, apps, and services developed in each project” and given “ephemeral nature of much of the data, which disappear short after the end of the projects” (Craglia and Eds 2014). A city is smart if it makes an optimal use of interconnected information to optimize the use of limited resources (Dirks et al. 2010).

Concerning cross-sectoral issues, according to IBM (Schaefer 2011), policies to overcome city challenges include: 1) reducing transport congestion; 2) improving safety by reducing crime rates and response time; 3) improving public services, education and training; 4) enhancing the provision of healthcare; 5) reducing capital and operational expenses; 6) increasing the use of digital technology and 7) ensuring security and resilience across systems. According to the UK Government (UK Department for Business Innovation & Skills 2013), some policy recommendations to address city challenges include: 1) restructuring the economy – economic growth and resilience are the main priorities for city authorities; 2) growing city infrastructure in integrated ways to sustain urban population growth and its pressure on transport systems and housing; 3) improving energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions while assuring acceptable security and price levels; 4) supporting the shift toward online service provision, shopping and entertainment; 5) supporting the needs of the aging population and how such needs are fulfilled on the city levels; and 6) providing cities with more flexibility to charging local fees and business rates, in addition to receiving government grants to be able to respond to challenges.

5.3.4. Attribute 4 – Risks
The Risks Attribute represents possible occurrence of undesirable and potentially damaging consequences of Smart City initiatives and how such consequences could be avoided, minimized or managed. Like Values, Drivers and Challenges, the Risks Attribute is part of the Smart City context and is likely to change together with this context. A number of policy papers further and provide values to this attribute. These policy inputs are described below.

According to the Commission on Growth and Development (Commission On Growth And Development et al. 2009), the market failures due to inefficient production, transit congestion and overcrowded places is a major risk which should be addressed through technological, institutional and policy changes. Regardless of their development levels, cities are vulnerable to disasters because of concentrated populations and they need disaster management to deal with the risk and impact of natural disasters (ITU 2014a). The World Bank highlights severe impact of climate change on coastal cities (The World Bank 2013). CISCO points out that the top risk to Smart City development is funding and cities should be aware of existing funding mechanisms and find innovative funding mechanisms (You and Learn 2014). The UK Government identified a set of risks to Smart City public service delivery: information and coordination failure; lack of proactive approach; inclusivity of public service delivery; fear of change and lack of trust in data privacy and system integrity; and proposed an integrated way to address them (UK Department for Business Innovation & Skills 2013).

5. Policy Literature Review

5.3.5. Attribute 5 – Regions
The Regions Attribute represents how a city’s Smart City initiatives are informed by its history and unique path to development, and how they could be benchmarked against other cities in the region. Like Values, Drivers, Challenges and Risks, the Regions Attribute is part of the Smart City context and likely to change together with it. A number of policy papers elaborate and provide values to this attribute. These policy inputs are described below.

According to (Commission On Growth And Development et al. 2009), while the economic development of cities depend on some global facts that affect all countries/cities, each country/city has its own geography, institutions, political conditions and local economic conditions that determine the set of policies that should be defined for solving problems and promoting productivity and prosperity. With globalization, some cities experience rapid growth and others are left behind, which highlights the importance of geography such as resource endowments and proximity to rivers and ports, the role of the density of human interactions for economic development and growth in regions, and threshold effects, i.e. avoiding the largest city in a country becoming too large relative to the others and absorbing all economic growth. However, smaller cities present considerable heterogeneous capabilities, so local policies should be aligned with national agendas. Taking advantage of geography and human density may increase city productivity.

According to the European Policy Department (Manville et al. 2014) and its analysis of EU’s Smart City initiatives and to what extent they are aligned with city development goals, innovation plans, and Europe 2020 targets, the most common Smart City initiatives are associated with smart environment at 33% and smart mobility at 21%, while the initiatives related to economy, governance, living and people represent only 10% of the Smart City initiatives. The analysis highlights that, in general, Smart City initiatives are aligned with city development goals, innovation plans and the overarching Europe 2020 targets. However, characteristics of such initiatives reflect the actual situation of the city or country, while the European strategy serves to only stimulate local and national actions. Each Smart City initiative has its unique flavor, and involves the participation of local, regional or national governments, the private sector and society, albeit with different weights and influences.

5.3.6. Attribute 6 – Technologies
The Technologies Attribute represent the presence of disruptive digital technologies, how they can generate public value, and what is required to apply them in the Smart City context. Unlike previous attributes, the Technologies Attribute is not part of the Smart City context, but an input to Smart City transformation. A number of policy papers further elaborate and provide concrete values to this attribute. These policy inputs are described below.

According to ITU (ITU 2014a), the technology potential in Smart City initiatives? is reflected in three main city dimensions: 1) environment and sustainability; 2) city-level services; and 3) quality of life. The basic city infrastructure will be equipped with advanced technologies including: smart energy, smart buildings, smart transportation, smart water, smart waste, smart physical safety and security, smart health care, and smart education. Some examples of technology uses include: generating information and knowledge sharing, forecasting behaviors and integrating systems, with data prediction, analytics, big data, open data, Internet of Things, data accessibility and management, data security, mobile broadband, ubiquitous sensor networks, all becoming integrated parts of the Smart City infrastructure.

The role played by digital technology in city sustainability is crucial due to aggregation and sharing of information and knowledge on digital platforms, allowing to better understand how city functions in terms of consumption, services and social behavior, and allowing to define policies aimed at improving the quality of urban life. The digital infrastructure is the center of a Smart City, orchestrating interactions and integrating all systems together.

According to IBM, Smart City technology should be used for: 1) collecting and managing information, 2) aggregating and analyzing data and 3) advancing analysis to optimize system behaviors (Dirks et al. 2010). In turn, CISCO recommends as the top five Smart City technologies: communication networks; intelligent infrastructures; computation, data storage and data centers; data analysis; and cyber security (You and Learn 2014). The UK Government recommends building intelligent infrastructure equipped with smart systems and Internet of Things, to enable data access to service providers to manage service delivery and inform about strategic investment needs, for instance, if the city transport is prepared to cope with peak hours demands (UK Department for Business Innovation & Skills 2013). The Government of India recommends the use of clean technologies that use renewable materials and energy to reduce environmental footprint (Government of India 2014).

5.3.7. Attribute 7 – Tools
The Tools Attribute represents various conceptual, technical and methodological guides and instruments, many available on digital platforms, to support planning and implementation of Smart City initiatives. Like the Technologies Attribute, the Tools Attribute is an input to Smart City transformation. A number of policy papers further elaborate and provide concrete values to this attribute. These policy inputs are described below.

ITU recommends two Smart City tools: ITU-T “Key Performance Indicators in Smart Sustainable Cities” to measure Smart City performance (ITU 2014b) and SSC “A Smart Sustainable City” (ITU 2014a). UN-Habitat recommends the use of the “City Prosperity Index” to measure economic growth (UN-HABITAT 2013). ISO recommends the use of two Smart City standards: “ISO 37120 – Sustainable Development of Communities – Indicators for City Services and Quality of Life” and “ISO 37101 - Sustainable Development of Communities – Management Systems – Requirements with Guidance for Resilience and Smartness” (ISO 2014) to help develop more efficient, safe, sustainable and reliable Smart Cities (ISO 2013b). IBM recommends the use of four Smart City tools: Smart City Assessment, Smarter City Maturity Model, Smarter City Actionable Business Architecture and Municipal Reference Model (Schaefer 2011). Microsoft recommends the CityNext Assessment and TrusteGov tools to measure the readiness of a city (Microsoft 2014). The Government of India recommends three Smart City tools: Citizen Reference Framework, Smart City Development Plan and Environmental Sustainability Plan (Government of India 2014).

The European Policy Department (Manville et al. 2014) analyzes six dimensions addressed by Smart City initiatives pursued by European cities: Smart Governance, Smart People, Smart Living, Smart Mobility, Smart Economy and Smart Environment. For each dimension, the implementation should include policies, norms and standards; the study shows that none of the investigated initiatives successfully addressed the six dimensions, e.g. the very successful Amsterdam Smart City initiative addressed almost 3.5 dimensions.

According to (Whyte 2014), the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development (MOHURD) and other departments of the Central Government in China introduced relevant regulations to standardize Smart City development in China. Since 2011, MIIT created a number of Smart City implementation programs, such as the 12th Five-year Plan for the Development of Information Security Industry, the 12th Five-year Plan for the Development of Internet of Things and the 12th Five-year Plan for the Development of e-Commerce. Another initiative by NDRC, MIIT, the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Land and Resources (MOHURD) and the Ministry of Transport developed a document “Guiding Opinions on Promoting the Healthy Development of Smart Cities”, and MOHURD released in 2012 a new measurement tool for the administration of National Smart Cities and the Pilot Index System for National Smart Cities (District and Towns) and started its application to pilot cities.

5.3.8. Attribute 8 – Approaches
The Approaches Attribute represents the fundamental decisions, supported by practical, methodological or even philosophical arguments, concerning how Smart City transformation will be planned and conducted. Unlike Technologies and Tools, the Approaches Attribute is not part of inputs to Smart City transformation, but part of the transformation itself. A number of policy papers further elaborate and provide concrete values to this attribute. These policy inputs are described below.

Concerning top-down approaches, according to the World Bank (Commission On Growth And Development et al. 2009) (The World Bank 2013), the investments in infrastructure will be locked in the next years and therefore cities, particularly in developing countries in fast urbanization rates must as soon as possible adopt sustainable development policies. The UK Government (UK Department for Business Innovation & Skills 2013) recommends another top-down approach to supporting Smart City development through integrated solutions, national digital platform for businesses, and citizen centric public service delivery. Yet another topdown approach is by the European Policy Department (Manville et al. 2014) which recommends that public authorities apply assessment frameworks to measure Smart City solutions; that Smart City strategies should be explicit, specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time-dependent and aligned with the Europe 2020 targets; and that Smart City solutions include: 1) smart cycling plans, 2) integrated multi-modal transport, 3) smart traffic flow system, 4) Smart City lighting, 5) smart building technology and management, 6) smart open services platforms, 7) single access points for government services and 8) local integrated sustainability initiatives.

A bottom-up approach for the EU, according to (CASI 2014), includes the following most relevant Smart City policy actions: 1) local authorities need specialized knowledge to define sound and efficient strategies and action plans; 2) local authorities need reliable information for assessing the achievement of local, national and regional (EU) targets in energy, governance, citizenship, culture and other areas; 3) the needs and opinions of citizens, companies, research community and other stakeholders should be considered for defining pertinent strategies; 4) two crucial features for stakeholder participation are enhanced public engagement and interdisciplinary cooperation of social actors; 5) experimentation with new solutions and innovations in specific urban conditions is encouraged for replication and deployment of solutions in different cities; and 6) sound communication of best practices and successful Smart City measures are needed for experience sharing. Another bottom-up approach, by IBM, is to prioritize investments in core systems such as transport, government services and education, public safety, public health, energy, environmental sustainability and urban planning (Dirks et al. 2010).

According to (Whyte 2014) which includes a study of Smart City trends and policies and a review of Chinese and European Smart City projects: 1) the concept of Smart City is implemented differently by different cities, from individual traffic solutions, through waste management solutions, to integrated city-wide services; 2) there is no single set of recommendations on how to “get smarter” for any city; 3) it is possible to offer a set of principles applicable to any city; 4) becoming a Smart City is a process with no definite end state; and 5) defining a roadmap for continuous step-by-step improvements is possible. These recommendations can be both applied top-down and bottom-up.

5.3.9. Attribute 9 – StakeholdersThe Stakeholders Attribute represents all parties, including public, private and voluntary sectors with interest and concern in Smart City initiatives and their progress and outcomes. Like the Approaches Attribute, the Stakeholders Attribute is part of the Smart City transformation. A number of policy papers further elaborate and provide concrete values to this attribute. These policy inputs are described below.

The World Bank highlights the complexity of the city metabolism and interactions between government, citizens, businesses and other actors, and recommends the promotion of cooperative Smart City networks to achieve sustainable futures with private and public sectors contributing to sustainable policies and incentives to guide private activities, generate innovation and share information (The World Bank 2013). To ensure urban resilience, multi-sectoral partnerships involving public, private and community participation are needed. While public-private partnerships increase the provision of new public services, policies and regulations that protect the interests of citizens and investors must be created.

The Indian Government advocates public-private partnerships to transfer innovation and efficiency from the private to the public sectors. The involvement of the private sector in public services delivery enables higher resource optimization (Government of India 2014).

5.3.10. Attribute 10 – Governance
The Governance Attribute represents how the Smart City government operates, how it manages public funds, how it delivers public infrastructure and services, how it supports sustainable city development, and how it engages its citizens in decision-making processes. Like the Approaches and Stakeholders Attributes, the Governance Attribute is part of Smart City transformation. A number of policy papers further elaborate and provide concrete values to this attribute. These policy inputs are described below.

According to (Commission On Growth And Development et al. 2009): 1) when financial and technical capacity is scarce, governments should prioritize infrastructure investments and service improvement; 2) differences between national and local governments slow down the transformation of local governance structures and policies to best suit city growth; 3) urban transformation requires politics, social norms, institutional changes and strong financial systems; 4) while central governments should ensure labor mobility and internal trade and better infrastructure, local governments should focus on quality of life; the tensions between central and local government objectives include labor promotion and job creation; and 5) in developing countries, urban policies generally aim at improving public infrastructure and limiting the flow of people from rural areas to crowded cities.

According to the World Bank, the solution to Smart City governance lies in institutions and their interactions, and citizens are emerging as a crucial stakeholder in the governance of Smart Cities (The World Bank 2013). Specific governance policy recommendations include: 1) stimulate continuous improvements in accountability, transparency and good governance; 2) develop policies to increase energy efficiency and promote renewable energy for buildings and transport; 3) encourage the creation of compact and efficient cities through regulations and incentives; 4) build strong partnerships between public and private sectors and the society to address multi-sectoral policies for sustainable development; 5) build capacity in local governments and enable national-level policies to achieve sustainable cities; 6) build transnational municipal networks to allow global city-to-city collaborations to develop innovative approaches; and 7) ideas, tools, metrics, etc. to build sustainable cities do not themselves create such cities.

5. Policy Literature Review
The UK Government promotes five kinds of Smart City policies: 1) encourage and empower city authorities to develop a city vision and grow leadership to provide solutions to city problems; 2) promote, give access to and share open data and develop open data standards; 3) execute programs to develop Smart City technologies and demonstrate their efficiency; 4) execute departmental programs to encourage the use of new approaches and technologies, and transform both services delivered and costumer behavior; and 5) participate in EU funding programs (UK Department for Business Innovation & Skills 2013).

According to (Microsoft 2014), Smart City policies recommendations include: 1) identifying mayor perceptions, i.e. political agenda and project alignment; 2) self-diagnosis, i.e. evaluating government situation, share the vision, and implement management systems; 3) action plans, i.e. plan and execute local government programs and assess their performance; and 4) government plans, i.e. revise action plans based on performance, propose and build a digital agenda, and align political plans with citizen needs.

According to the Indian Government (Government of India 2014): 1) apply a governance approach based on incentives rather than enforcement; 2) broke down the work into silos with institutional integration; and 3) enable citizen participation in governance processes through by making government information available online and using social media.

5.3.11. Attribute 11 – Maturity Models
The Maturity Models Attribute represents the advancement of Smart City development along a series of discrete maturity stages, the achievement of higher stages representing a significant advancement compared to the lower stages. Like the Approaches, Stakeholders and Governance Attributes, the Maturity Models Attribute is part of Smart City transformation. A number of policy papers further elaborate and provide concrete values to this attribute. These policy inputs are described below.

According to ITU (ITU 2014a), determining Smart City maturity requires defining various smartness and sustainability attributes to be part of Smart City metrics and references points. According to the World Bank (The World Bank 2013), maturity should examine urban metabolism, i.e. patterns of production and consumption, rather than traditional ecological footprint. Such analysis, although it needs many assumptions, captures economic growth, urbanization pace and gas emissions. While all cities should measure city operations, environment and social data, standardized data is needed to compare cities. In addition to maturity, cities should also measure resilience. According to IBM (Schaefer 2011), Smart City maturity should be measured in terms of improvements in quality of life and economic growth through the use of digital technologies.

The ISO standard “ISO 37120 – Sustainable Development of Communities – Indicators for City Services and Quality of Life” provides an assessment tool to measure the sustainability of Smart City projects, including targets and benchmarks to assist policymakers and city managers in their activities, and a set of indicators to measure city performance in different areas: economy, e.g. youth unemployment rate; education, e.g. percentage of female school-aged population enrolled in schools; energy, e.g. energy consumption of public buildings per year; environment, e.g. greenhouse gas emissions measured in tons per capita; finance, e.g. tax collected as a percentage of tax billed; fire and emergency response, e.g. number of firefighters per 100,000 population; governance, e.g. voter participation in the last municipal election; health, e.g. average life expectancy; recreation, e.g. square meters of public indoor recreation space per capita; safety, e.g. crimes against property per 100,000 population; shelter, e.g. percentage of city population living in slums; solid waste, e.g. percentage of the city’s solid waste that is recycled; telecommunication and innovation, e.g. number of Internet connections per 100,000 population; transportation, e.g. kilometers of high capacity public transport system per 100,000 population; urban planning, e.g. green areas in hectares per 100,000 population; wastewater, e.g. percentage of city population served by wastewater collection; and water and sanitation, e.g. total domestic water consumption per capita.

According to (Whyte 2014), the “Smart City Staircase Roadmap towards Maturity” includes five maturity levels: 1) not yet addressed; 2) basic; 3) average; 4) more advanced; and 5) state-of-the art. The roadmap is based on two principles: 1) no leapfrogging – due to managerial, technological and financial capacity and excessive pressure on many city systems and functions putting normal day-to-day operations at risk, it is not possible to advance more than one step at a time; and 2) no isolated advances – it is counter-productive to advance one characteristic while neglecting others although not all characteristics must have the same level of maturity and the stakeholders should define and agree on priority areas. The roadmap identifies eight areas including features to be achieved at each stage and some policy recommendations: 1) strategy – ensuring integrated city planning, looking beyond the horizon and using modern management tools; 2) stakeholders – pursuing active customer engagement and seeking feedback and opinions from employees; 3) governance – aligning organizational structure with Smart City vision, and promoting public participation; 4) funding – developing sustainable funding plans using scenario planning; 5) value assessment – applying rational planning and analysis tools and utilizing private sector know-how; 6) business models – allowing for creativity and clearly defining business model parameters; 7) technology infrastructure – defining technologyneutral infrastructure targets, defining strategic focus, using open standards and open data, and defining a policy framework to facilitate modernization; and 8) services – prioritizing services, creating service platforms, and collaborating with other cities.

5.3.12. Attribute 12 – InnovationsThe Innovations Attribute represents the capacity of a Smart City for creating and realizing new ideas, processes, services, etc. around the use of digital technologies to address existing needs or utilize new opportunities and create an impact on the city. Unlike the Approaches, Stakeholders, Governance and Maturity Models that belong to Smart City transformation, the Innovations Attribute belongs to Smart City outcomes. A number of policy papers elaborate and provide concrete values to this attribute. These policy inputs are described below.

According to ITU (ITU 2014a), digital technology and tools can provide innovative, eco-friendly and economically viable solutions for Smart Cities. The innovations could be advanced, e.g. in the form of efficient water management based on real-time information exchange through sensors, public transport systems relying on GPS information, environmental solutions based on quality of air and electromagnetic field measurement, etc.

The UK Government (UK Department for Business Innovation & Skills 2013) recommends that its cities adapt their strategies to the current city challenges and to innovate in the service delivery, in particular by: 1) resorting to service outsourcing; 2) integrating services both at the back office and at the front office; 3) online service delivery; and 4) access to open data to enable the development of new services and citizens be informed about city operations.

According to IBM (Dirks et al. 2010), the economic growth and city competitiveness depend deeply on the skills of citizens and innovative capacity of the city economy. Bases on that, IBM recommends the policies for: 1) attracting international talent with quality of life within the city; 2) developing local talent through education and training; 3) investing in education infrastructures; 4) enhancing and deploying citizen skills based on demand and changes in the labor force; and 5) trying to maintain the local talent to avoid brain drain. IBM also recognizes the importance of identifying the strengths of a city to attract skills, knowledge and creativity, and Smart City strategies to take advantage of these strengths.

5. Policy Literature Review

5.3.13. Attribute 13 – Benefits
The Benefits Attribute represents a range of positive outcomes obtained by the city and its various stakeholders due to its transformation into a Smart City. Like the Innovations Attribute, the Benefits Attribute belongs to Smart City outcomes. A number of policy papers elaborate and provide values to this attribute. These policy inputs are described below.

According to (ITU 2014a), transforming cities with digital technologies allows more efficient management of resources and infrastructures, green environment, smart governance and higher quality of life for citizens. Furthermore, an innovative Smart City not only improves quality of life, but optimizes city operations, services and competitiveness, while ensuring the economic, social and environmental sustainability. According to (The World Bank 2013), a resilient Smart City has the capacity to adapt and reorganize itself in response to external shocks, and continue to function. Indeed, changes in resilient cities caused by external shocks can create opportunities for innovation. According to the European Commission (Craglia and Eds 2014), Smart Cities offer the best quality of life and the lowest use of resources.

IBM highlights that investments in Smarter City’s infrastructure result in cost savings and increase the efficiency of city operations, putting the city in a good position for long-term economic growth (Dirks et al. 2010). According to CISCO, municipalities worldwide are trying to improve their infrastructure and be more attractive to businesses and investors through Smart City initiatives (You and Learn 2014). According (Microsoft 2014), Smart City initiatives bring benefits including: 1) reducing error margins, enhancing cooperation and speeding up service delivery; 2) engaging citizens through mobile and social applications; and 3) accelerating access to safe digital solutions, e.g. the cloud, and faster response times.

The UK Government argues that a Smart City brings together infrastructure, human capital, communities, institutions and technologies to create sustainable economic development and a better environment for citizens (UK Department for Business Innovation & Skills 2013). According to (Government of India 2014), a Smart City should offer: high quality of life, e.g. affordable housing; efficient social and institutional infrastructure; quality water supply; clean air; quality education; cost-efficient healthcare; security; entertainment; sports; robust high speed connectivity; and fast and efficient urban mobility; while reducing the need for travel through online services, thus reducing congestion, pollutants and energy use.

6. Case Study Development
Complementing research and policy literature reviews in Sections 4 and 5 of this report, this section focuses on the development of 21 real-life case studies of Smart Cities for Sustainable Development, selected among 119 relevant initiatives from around the world. The section starts with data collection process in Section 6.1, followed by the quantitative analysis of the 119 initiatives in Section 6.2, followed by the qualitative analysis of 21 fully developed case studies in Section 6.3. The quantitative analysis is based upon 7 case study-specific aspects different from those applied in the quantitative analysis conducted in Sections 4 and 5, while the qualitative analysis is based upon the same 13 attributes as applied in Sections 4 and 5, derived from the project’s terms of reference and further studies.

6.1. Data Collection
The aim of the data collection process was to identify relevant initiatives to assess the state of practice in Smart Cities for Sustainable Development and identify possible case studies. The data process was divided into three steps: 1) Identifying Smart City for Sustainable Development initiatives from around the world and creating a repository of examples to capture the state of practice in the area; 2) Selecting initiatives from the repository and documenting them as case studies; and 3) Selecting relevant case studies and interviewing expert involved with them to gain access to first-hand knowledge and experience.

The following sections explain each step of this process, including Smart City initiatives in Section 6.1.1, the development of such initiatives into case studies in Section 6.1.2 and the organization of interviews concerning selected case studies in Section 6.1.3.

6.1.1. Smart City Initiatives
Three data sources were used to identify Smart City initiatives: 1) the case studies identified through the research literature review conducted in Section 4; 2) the case studies developed by Smart City policy organizations identified in Section 5; and 3) the case studies known to the researchers conducting this work.

In total, 119 Smart City initiatives were identified from these sources, included in the repository and analyzed quantitatively: 46 were identified through the research literature review; 61 through Smart City policy organizations; and 12 were known to the researchers. All 119 initiatives are listed in Appendix C.1 of this report, and the results of quantitative analysis of these initiatives are presented in Section 6.2.

6. Case Study Development

6.1.2. Case Studies
The case studies were selected among the 119 identified Smart City initiatives based on the following criteria: 1) relevance to developing countries – given the focus of the study, the researchers decide that at least 80% of the case studies should be from developing countries; 2) richness of information – a Smart City initiative should be documented with enough detailed information to be selected as a case study; and 3) balanced geographical distribution – the case studies should be selected from various regions in the world.

To gather all possible information related to a case study, a template document was created. The entire Template is included in Appendix C.2, and its structure is described as follows: 1. Identifier – This section includes information about the identifier of the case study, the name of the initiative and the country where it was developed. It also contains information about the structure of the whole template. 2. Sources – This section provides information about: 1) the initiative described – name and case; 2) the survey – the major sources of information used to carry out the survey including URLs, descriptions, highlights and comments; and 3) the surveyor – who carried out the survey, who revised the result and when these actions were done. 3. Who – This section includes information about the institution and its partners responsible for conducting the initiative. For each institution, the template includes: 1) its name; 2) whether the institutions is a founder of the initiative; 3) the role played by the institution in the initiative, such as developer, planner, implementer of technology infrastructure and others; and 4) the sector where the institution belongs such as government, industry, academia, non-government, etc. 4. Where and when – This section includes information about the location, i.e. the country, province, city and region where the initiative was conducted, and when. 5. What – This section includes information about the initiative itself: 1) the background information about the city where the initiative was conducted; 2) the main concepts underpinning the initiative, such as digital city, intelligent city, knowledge city, eco city, ubiquitous city or smart city; 3) the aim of the initiative; 4) the main innovations brought in by the initiative; 5) the lessons learnt; and 6) any other information. 6. Why – This section includes the rationale for the initiative, and which dimensions it contributes to: 1) economic development; 2) governance development; 3) mobility; 4) environment; 5) social development including social and human capital; and 6) quality of life. It also collects data about the benefits and values promoted by the initiative. 7. Implementation – This section documents how the initiative was implemented: 1) whether top-down, i.e. government-driven or bottom-up, i.e. citizens-driven; 2) governance model; 3) maturity stages; 4) challenges; 5) risks; and 6) technologies.
In total, 21 initiatives were developed and documented as full case studies: 3 from Africa, 8 from the Americas, 6 from Asia and 4 from Europe. The identification, city, country and region of each case study are shown in Table 17 while details are included in Appendix C.3.

6.1.3. Interviews
Among 21 case studies, 11 were selected for interviews with experts or practitioners participating in or leading the associated initiatives. The experts or practitioners were contacted by email and sometimes by phone. Among 11 contacts, 6 interviews were conducted as showed in Table 17 below. Appendix C.4 presents the entire interview protocol including questions about the local context, changes introduced, challenges, risks, governance, and other comments concerning the initiatives in question, and Appendix C.5 includes the transcripts of the interviews including answers to these questions.

6.2. Quantitative Analysis
The quantitative analysis of the 119 identified Smart City initiatives is carried out along 5 case studyspecific aspects and the findings are included in the corresponding sections: dimensions – Section 6.2.1, organizations – Section 6.2.2, countries – Section 6.2.3, types – Section 6.2.4 and approaches – Section 6.2.5. The five aspects are different than those used in the quantitative analysis of the research and policy literature reviews in Sections 4 and 5.

6.2.1. Aspect 1 – Dimensions
The Dimensions Aspect analyzes the objectives and nature of Smart City initiatives, i.e. whether they advance the Smart People, Smart Living, Smart Economy, Smart Mobility, Smart Environment, or Smart Governance dimensions of a Smart City. According to Figure 43, the dimensions most often covered by the Smart City initiatives are: Smart Living at 25%, followed by Smart Environment at 21%, Smart Economy at 19%, Smart Mobility at 13%, Smart Governance at 13%, and Smart People at 9%.

The developing-developed country comparison, depicted in Figure 44, shows that Smart Living is the most common dimension of Smart City initiatives in developing countries, with 38 versus 34 initiatives in developing and developed countries respectively, followed by Smart Economy with 32 versus 22 initiatives, Smart Environment with 27 versus 35 initiatives – the only dimension where developed countries have more initiatives than developing countries, Smart Mobility with 21 versus 17 initiatives, Smart Governance with 20 versus 17 initiatives, and Smart People with 13 initiatives each.

In terms of the number of dimensions covered by individual initiatives, 40% of the initiatives cover one dimension, 24% cover two dimensions, and 12%, 9%, 7% and 8% cover three, four, five and six dimensions respectively. The percentages are depicted in Figure 45.

The comparison of the multi-dimensionality of Smart City initiatives between developing and developed countries is depicted in Figure 46. In general, there are more single-dimensional initiatives in developed countries (27) compared to developing countries (20) but there are more multi-dimensional initiatives in developing countries (38) than in developed countries (33). Specifically, 16 versus 12 initiatives with two dimensions, 5 versus 9 initiatives with three dimensions, 8 versus 3 initiatives with four dimensions, 2 versus 6 initiatives with five dimensions and 7 versus 3 initiatives with all six dimensions.

6.2.3. Aspect 3 – Countries
The Countries Aspect determines where the Smart City initiatives were conducted. In total, the 119 Smart City initiatives were hosted by 49 countries and territories. As depicted in Figure 49, the largest number of initiatives came from the USA (11), followed by the Republic of Korea (8) and China (6), followed by Germany and the UK at 5 initiatives each.

About half of the initiatives, i.e. 59 or 50% are from developing countries and another half, i.e. 60 or 50% from developed countries. Concerning regions, according to Figure 50, the largest number of initiatives were conducted in Europe (37%), followed by Asia Pacific (28%), Africa (13%), North America (13%) and Latin America and the Caribbean (9%). Among 16 initiatives in Africa, 6 are from East Africa, 5 from West Africa, 3 from Southern Africa and 1 each from North and Central Africa.

6.2.4. Aspect 4 – Types
The Type Aspect determines if an initiative concerns Smart City planning or implementation. As shown in Figure 51, planning-type initiatives in developing countries exceed those in developed countries (38 versus 32) countries, while implementation-type initiatives in developed countries exceed those in developing countries (28 versus 19). 

6.2.5. Aspect 5 – Approaches
The Approach Aspect determines the approach adopted to conducting a Smart City initiative, whether topdown (government-led) approach or a bottom-up (citizen-driven) approach. According to Figure 52, topdown initiatives are more frequent in developing countries (52) compared to developed countries (45) while bottom-up initiatives are more frequent in developed countries (8) compared to developing countries (3).

6.3. Qualitative Analysis
Following the quantitative analysis of all 119 Smart City initiatives, this section presents the qualitative analysis of the 21 initiatives selected among them and developed into full Smart City case studies. The analysis generally aimed at establishing how the case studies address each of the 13 Smart City Attributes derived from the project’s terms of reference and further study, the same set of Attributes applied to analyze research and policy literature reviews in Sections 4 and 5. The result are outlined in subsequent sections: 1. Values – Section 6.3.1; 2. Drivers – Section 6.3.2; 3. Challenges – Section 6.3.3; 4. Risks – Section 6.3.4; 5. Regions – Section 6.3.5; 6. Technologies – Section 6.3.6; 7. Tools – Section 6.3.7; 8. Approaches – Section 6.3.8; 9. Stakeholders – Section 6.3.9; 10. Governance – Section 6.3.10; 11. Maturity models – Section 6.3.11; 12. Innovations – Section 6.3.12; and 13. Benefits – Section 6.3.13.

The analysis was carried out with support from the spreadsheet tool Excel developed by Microsoft and the mind mapping and brainstorming tool XMind developed by XMind Ltd.

6.3.1. Attribute 1 – Values
The analysis of the 21 case studies identified 44 values underpinning Smart City initiatives. The values are organized into ten categories depicted in Figure 53: Quality of Life (1 value); Economic (2 values),; Regional (3 values); City Attributes (5 values); Social (10 values); Governance (4 values); Environment (1 value); Human Capital (5 values); and Infrastructure (6 values); and Services (7 values). The full list of values is included in Table 18.

Quality

Table 20: Case Study Qualitative Analysis, Attribute 2 – Instances of Drivers ID TYPE DESCRIPTION DR1 Economic Developing an environment for creation of economic activities DR2 Economic Creating job opportunities in the IT industry DR3 Economic Contributing to transforming the country into a powerful global economy DR4 Economic Attracting international companies to bring competent human resources

DR5 Economic Creating a sustainable, world-class technology hub DR6 Economic Positioning the city as an international platform for mining and energy industries DR7 Economic Be the number one of ICT industry in the global marketplace DR8 Economic Increasing two-fold the value of ICT industry and three-fold ICT exportations DR9 Economic Creating 80,000 new jobs DR10 Economic Fostering economic development by greening existing sectors by using energy and natural resources efficiently DR11 Economic Stimulating innovations in ICT, bio-, aerospace, energy and nuclear technologies DR12 Economic Developing a digital creative city to boost economic growth DR13 Governance Promoting citizen-centric and efficient governance DR14 Governance Promoting accountable and transparent governance DR15 Governance Delivering an efficient urban management system DR16 Governance Improving citizens’ access to public services and participation DR17 Governance Releasing more data-sets to the public DR18 Governance Encouraging the co-creation of smart city DR19 Governance Improving e-participation in public affairs DR20 Governance Improving service delivery in specific government sectors, like justice, education, health, finances and transport DR21 Governance Consolidating a governance model with private sector involvement DR22 Governance Governance role in promoting attractiveness for leveraging investments, high growth business, creativeness, risk-taking and social innovation DR23 Mobility Delivering a cost efficient and intelligent urban mobility system DR24 Mobility Building a world-class hub to serve the daily commuters DR25 Mobility Enhancing real-time bus information DR26 Mobility Achieving cleaner and greener transport through green innovative technologies DR27 Mobility Implementing and deploying ICT in city transport systems DR28 Mobility Improving mobility of people in peripheral areas DR29 Mobility To be a reference in innovative solutions for efficient urban mobility management DR30 Mobility Guaranteeing green urban mobility DR31 Environment Delivering effective waste treatment ensuring efficient collection and disposal DR32 Environment Reducing carbon emissions DR33 Environment Protecting the coast line of the city DR34 Environment Building eco-friendly energy infrastructures DR35 Environment Reducing pollution DR36 Environment Ensuring a sustainable environment DR37 Environment Achieving resource sustainability DR38 Environment Delivering effective drainage DR39 Environment Using clean and renewable energy DR40 Environment Encouraging responsible behavior for mobility, production and consumption, respecting natural and cultural heritage resources

6. Case Study Development
DR41 Environment Providing reference tools for boosting the green economy DR42 Environment Obtaining prudent management of energy and water resources DR43 Environment Measuring and reducing environmental impact of buildings DR44 Environment Implementing inspection system for constructions DR45 Environment Making city parks a sustainable, green, innovative and enjoyable space DR46 Environment Ensuring clean water DR47 Environment Protecting urban biodiversity and enhancing natural resilience DR48 Social Having high education schools in every neighborhoods DR49 Social Delivering online content and e-education DR50 Social Delivering high quality healthcare facilities DR51 Social Implementing electronic health records for every resident DR52 Social Providing access to telemedicine in every neighborhood DR53 Social Delivering effective health care DR54 Social Promoting marriages among single people DR55 Social Promoting gender-equal legal rights DR56 Social Conducting research to apply green technologies for more efficient use of natural resources DR57 Social Ensuring universal, equal and affordable access to services through ICT DR58 Social Developing citizens’ digital competences DR59 Social Advancing social and business commitment towards a sustainable and collaborative culture DR60 Social Creating an environment that attracts and retains creative people and companies DR61 Social Promoting social inclusion, social development and community spirit DR62 Quality of Life Ensuring affordable housing DR63 Quality of Life Deploying cost efficient physical and social infrastructure - e.g. water and energy supply, sanitation DR64 Quality of Life Enhancing quality of education DR65 Quality of Life Delivering dependable security services DR66 Quality of Life Providing access to sport facilities DR67 Quality of Life Deploying robust and high speed interconnectivity DR68 Quality of Life Ensuring efficient urban mobility for better quality of life DR69 Quality of Life Deploying an ubiquitous communication network DR70 Quality of Life Ensuring better quality of life for citizens DR71 Quality of Life Building infrastructures for commercial and residential areas, and world-class recreational facilities DR72 Quality of Life Saving citizens’ time, effort and cost for daily life activities DR73 Quality of Life Improving people’s quality of life by creating an environmentally friendly lifestyle DR74 Quality of Life Building green spaces DR75 Quality of Life Creating a high quality urban model of living that seamlessly integrates adequate zoning for living, commerce and entertainment DR76 Quality of Life Ensuring opportunities for personal development and creative social realization

Figure 62 depicts the analysis of the 21 case studies along the three categories of the Regions Attribute. Concerning continents, the case studies are distributed all over the world: 29% of the case studies are hosted in Asia; 19% each in South America and Europe; 14% in Africa; 10% in Central America; and 9% in North America. Concerning development status; 80% of the cases studies are hosted in developing countries and 20% in developed countries, representing the focus on the projects. Concerning income levels, all World Bank categories are represented in the case studies, namely: 5% of the case studies come from low-income countries, 19% from lower middle-income countries; 38% from upper middle-income countries; 24% from high income OECD countries; and 14% from non-OECD countries.

7.2. Framework
The definition of the conceptual framework on Smart City for Sustainable Development relies on five major inputs: 1. The vision of Smart City for Sustainable Development presented in Table 43; 2. The findings of the research literature review, policy literature review and case study development, as presented in Sections 4, 5 and 6 respectively; 3. One major principle to achieve sustainable development – policy coherence (UN OWG 2015); 4. The six dimensions of Smart Cities as proposed in (Giffinger et al. 2010); and 5. The basic principle of monitoring and measuring any transformative process.

The conceptual framework is depicted in Figure 78 and explained in the following sections.

7.3. Element 1 – Context
The context refers to specific features of the local environment (the city) that must be considered for the development of a Smart City. It includes different attributes that will affect the choices for planning and implementing Smart City initiatives, such as: values, drivers, challenges, risks and regions. Each of them is explained and illustrated below based on the findings from the research and policy literature reviews and case study development.

7.3.1. Attribute 1 – Values
The values driving Smart City initiatives can be of different nature related to: 1) the city itself; 2) sustainable development, including socio-economic development and environmental protection; and 3) the governance process adopted for conducting such initiatives. Following such considerations, values are classified into five categories: 1) City; 2) Economic Development; 3) Social Development; 4) Environment Protection; and 5) Governance. The values are defined below.

City Values – The set of agreed values to be used in defining the vision of a Smart City, for example: social, vibrant, livable, clean, healthy, safe, responsive, resilient, promoting proximity between people’s accommodation and working environments, and sustainable.

Economic Values – Smart City initiatives promoting economic development should be driven by clear values, for example to thrive in job creation and financial growth, and to develop the entrepreneurial culture.

Social Values – Smart city initiatives represent opportunities to cultivate social values by empowering social activities. Example social values include: development of human capital through Smart City e-learning platforms, talent development, equity and fairness, social inclusion, institutionalizing civic values e.g. sense of belonging, and civic discipline.

Environment-related Values – Any Smart City initiative needs to ensure that environmental resources are protected for future generations. Example environment-related values include: green areas protection, and commitment to reducing CO2 emissions.

Governance Values – Since the development of Smart City initiatives highly depends on the governance approach, having clear governance value makes a difference. Example governance values include: giving voice to citizens for planning and building their city, developing citizen engagement and participation in community-related issues, consensus building for inclusive decisions, bringing citizens together around collective goals, transparency, public scrutiny, and strengthening government-citizen collaboration.

7.3.2. Attribute 2 – Drivers
Drivers for developing Smart City initiatives depend on: 1) the age of the city; 2) development focus of the initiatives; and 3) city dimensions to be improved. These are defined below.

City Age Drivers – There are two different drivers for Smart City initiatives based on the city history. In the case of old cities, Smart City initiatives can be seen as a mechanism for regeneration of urban areas. In the case of new cities, Smart City initiatives are a useful approach for conducting a rational city planning following a local strategy aligned with regional and national urbanization and development strategies.

Development Drivers – Depending on the development focus of the Smart City initiatives example drivers include: leveraging on the deployment of ICT for city development, leveraging on human capital, emphasizing

7. Conceptual Framework
on business-led development, attracting investments, and promoting the development of a given sector, like e.g. renewable energy, creative industries or high-tech industries.
City Dimension Drivers – Ultimately, the drivers may depend on the city dimensions to be improved by Smart City initiatives. Such drivers could be: economic, social, environment, mobility, living and governance.

7.3.3. Attribute 3 – Challenges
Smart City initiatives need to overcome or provide solutions, as defined below, to different types of challenges: 1) economic; 2) social; 3) environmental; 4) technical; 5) service delivery; 6) financial; 7) governance; and 8) institutional.

Economic Challenges – Examples include improving local competitiveness against regional and international markets, diversifying economic activities, obtaining funding for Smart City initiatives, overcoming spatial inequalities in productivity and income, overcoming pressures to the resource base due to growth of urban populations, reducing capital and operational expenditures, facing budget cuts affecting local governments, and controlling efforts driven by wild capitalism.

Social Challenges – Examples include ensuring equity and fairness, reinforcement of social and territorial cohesion, ensuring social inclusion, addressing political and ethnic tensions, increasing burden on adult social care, ensuring the availability of services for different communities in the city, and leveraging human capital.

Environmental Challenges – Examples include protecting natural resources and green areas, reducing emissions generated by transport systems, reducing energy consumption or using renewable energy, addressing environmental degradation caused by urbanization, adopting green practices, reducing dependency on gas and oil, reducing air pollution, and addressing the scarcity of natural resources.
Technical Challenges – Examples include deployment of integrated city infrastructure and service platforms, solving machine-to-machine communication, ensuring system and data security, managing spectrum utilization, defining and ensuring the adoption of interoperability standards, provision of analytical methods needed to integrate qualitative and quantitative data from heterogeneous sources, making optimal use of interconnected information for improving efficiency of city operations, optimizing the use of limited resources, having the appropriate technology at the right time, contextualizing a solution or a good practice to the local conditions, and producing and delivering scalable solutions.

Service Delivery Challenges – Examples include increased demand for energy, water and sanitation; increased waste generation and shortfalls in municipal budgets to collect and proper dispose of waste; increased pressure on housing and transport systems; improving public safety by reducing crime and emergency response time; reducing traffic congestions; ensuring the construction of comfortable city facilities and buildings; improving quality of services by delivering innovative services and streamlining and tailoring services to address citizens’ needs; ensuring the right levels of security and resilience across delivery models; updating new releases of public services without major disruptions to ongoing service delivery; ensuring 24*7 service availability; and ensuring customers’ satisfaction by maintaining data and information up to date.

Financial Challenges – Examples include ensuring availability of financial resources; addressing possible lack of capacity for attracting investors; ensuring the construction of cost effective buildings and facilities; reducing operational costs; and ensuring long-term sustainability of the delivered solutions.

Governance Challenges – Examples include engaging private sector in testing solutions, adopting decisions and proposals made by citizens; defining the proper role for private sector actor interventions – defining where, when, how they should be engaged; attracting talent; enabling distributed implementation and execution by different stakeholders supported by central coordination; and establishing a governance committee with broad representation of government levels and societal sectors.

Institutional Challenges – Examples include ensuring departmental coordination and alignment, overcoming bureaucracy in government agencies, attracting qualified IT professionals and relevant IT players, and having qualified human resources for service delivery.

7.3.4. Attribute 4 – Risks
Smart city initiative face various types of risks, such as: 1) economic; 2) social; 3) environmental; 4) technical; 5) financial; and 6) strategical. Each category is described below.

Economic Risks – Examples include promoting economic development based only on energy resources, developing an economy highly influenced by external factors, developing an economy only focusing on or highly dependent on ICT knowledge or the ICT industry, and low take up of delivered solutions due to high fees to access the services/products.

Social Risks – Due to different nature of social risks, we propose a further classification and refinement. The categories and examples include: 1) Social Divide – deepening social polarization and gentrification, deepening digital divide, and increasing disparities for accessing health services and knowledge; 2) Social Exclusion – rising citizens’ feeling of exclusion due to restrict access to connectivity and services, like controlled access to exclusive places; increasing social exclusion of local citizens due to efforts to attract qualified foreigners; neglecting citizens’ opinions due to political interests; and not addressing special needs of vulnerable groups; 3) Adoption – resistance to change resulting in low adoption or take up of new services, low adaptation and flexibility capacity for adopting new solutions, rising citizens’ concerns on privacy and security due to pervasive deployment of ICT; 4) Impact – disregarding legal, social and ethical impact of ICT, negative experiences of citizens and visitors due to high surveillance implemented by Smart City initiatives, developing a society driven by individuals instead of communities’ values due to the lack of common history and culture of dwellers, promoting economic development disregarding social concerns; and 5) Cultural – facing lack of transparency of government authorities, lack of trust among stakeholders, and low reliability among partners.

Environmental Risks – Examples include having a negative environmental impact of the Smart City initiative, not achieving the reduction of carbon footprint to comply with the Kyoto protocol, and promoting economic activities disregarding environmental concerns.

Technical Risks – Examples include technology-centered vision, facing cyber-attacks, limited capacity for satisfying service transport demand, lack of urban related research, generalizing results without proper contextualization, lack of alignment among project components, developing decoupled city infrastructure components, lack of open discussions on the use of ICTs, lack of awareness about the duality of introducing new technologies, lack of capacity for disaster management, difficulties for adopting integrated approaches, information failures, lack of trust in data privacy and system integrity

Financial Risks – Examples include lack of financial resources to afford the cost of the initiative, not being able to attract investors, not being able to efficiently collect service fees, and overcoming market failures.

Strategical Risks – Examples include initiatives driven by a restrictive vision focused only on technology deployment; initiatives driven by personal objectives, ideological and political interests; avoiding the manipulation of biased information that could distort reality; lack of communication between city planners

7. Conceptual Framework
and citizens; lack of integration among policies, ICT deployment and city plans; lack of careful readiness assessment of costs, ecological concerns and political implications; possible inter-organizational tension and conflicts; coordination failure, inability of cities to gain first mover advantage; fear of lock-in by vendors.

7.3.5. Attribute 5 – Region
A city is located in a geographical region, which may comprise more cities sharing similar problems and opportunities. Strengthening collaboration of cities in the same region and pursuing common goals can facilitate the development of Smart City initiatives. Example factors to be considered at the regional level include: 1) finding solutions to cities in the region by scaling up problems to be solved at the regional level, e.g. delivering common cloud services for all cities in the region; 2) defining common vision for cities in the region, e.g. pursuing regeneration of a whole region; and 3) seeking common benefits from individual contributions and collaboration, e.g. pursuing sustainable development of the region based on coordinated efforts conducted by individual cities.

When developing Smart Cities within a regional umbrella, specific concerns should be addressed, including: leveraging urban-interdependencies and the regional context; considering the city organizational culture, priorities, objectives and strategic vision; considering the relative position of the city in the region and global urban networks; preserving the urban heritage as identity; and framing initiatives into regional objectives according to the local settings.

Finally, problems are different from regions to regions. Differences rely on industrial and political history, culture, topology, geography, as well as on regional, national and international policies. Therefore, knowledge transferring of Smart City solutions at the regional level needs to be carefully analyzed based on the regional context.

7.4. Element 2 – Inputs
Inputs refer to specific elements that the transformation process of a Smart City initiative can use. Two input attributes are technologies and tools. Each attribute is explained and illustrated below based on the findings from the research and policy review and case study development.

7.4.1. Attribute 6 – Technologies
Technologies constitute a primary element to develop Smart Cities. Indeed, the Smart City concept is a new approach for urban development focused on the use of ICTs to improve quality of life of city dwellers. However, improving a city infrastructure used to provide basic services, i.e. electricity, water or sanitation, requires not only ICTs, but other technologies as well. We classify Smart City technologies into: ICTs, Hardware Tools, Software Tools, New ICT Approaches, and Other Technologies. Each category is described below.

ICTs – Examples include telecommunication and data networks; data centers; telecommunication networks; IPv6; wireless networks; computer networks; green ICTs for agriculture, forestry and biology; mobile technologies; vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communication technologies; vehicle prioritization technologies; ubiquitous networks; satellite TV; mobile technologies; RFID; pervasive services technologies; and multimedia technologies, surveillance and security technologies.

Hardware Tools – Examples include mobile devices, smart phones, sensors, and TV cameras.
Software Tools – Examples include ICT collaborative tools, video streaming tools, e-learning tools, web tools, databases, virtual maps, mobile apps, operation management tools, open source software, geographical information systems (GIS) and geo-informatics, electronic commerce tools, Customer Relationships Management (CRM) systems, and Automated-Fare-Collection (AFC) systems.

New ICT Approaches – Examples include open data, big data, cloud computing and cloud services, reality virtualization, data mining, data analytics, cyber-security, Internet of Things, and cloud computing and cloud services.

Other Technologies – Examples include those related to energy like solar, wind, and tidal; smart power grids; green materials and construction technologies; mechanics for transportation systems; green chemicals; and technologies for waste treatment.

7.4.2. Attribute 7 – Tools
Tools play a relevant role in Smart City development. In particular, tools contribute to: better planning and design of Smart City systems; better understanding the design strategies; predicting behavior of Smart City solutions; analyzing how a city works; improving services using context aware information; and assessing how user-driven open innovation econ-systems behave and could be organized. Based on the various roles, different types of tools are applied to Smart City development, such as: Regulatory; Planning; Operational; Governance and Management; and Monitoring tools. Each category is illustrated below.

Regulatory Tools – Examples include standards, e.g. ISO Standards for City Indicators; legal frameworks, and domain-specific policies, like an environmental tax policy based on consumption.
Planning Tools – Examples include Smart City reference frameworks, e.g. Cisco Smart City Framework; Smart City models, e.g. IBM Smarter City Actionable Business Architecture, and Municipal Reference Model; and Smart City master plans.

Operational Tools – The category includes all types of tools used for daily delivery of city services. We further classify operational tools into Hardware, Software and Infrastructure. Examples for each subcategories include the following: 1) Hardware – intelligent wired and wireless networks, Cisco service grids, ubiquitous devices, and sensor networks; 2) Software – business and personal communication systems, smart communication systems, data and information systems, software tools for data communication, virtual maps, simulation tools, modeling tools, virtual reality tools, and Innovation Technology (IvT); and 3) Infrastructure – smart nation ICT platform, e.g. Singapore Internet Exchange (SGIX), data center park, customer service center, command and control center, test beds, and living labs.

Governance and Management Tools – Examples include social media including Facebook, Twitter, forums and blogs; tools for project and program management, and tools for gathering stakeholders’ opinions, like online surveys.

Monitoring Tools – Examples include environmental impact assessment tool; data analysis and optimization software; national Internet measurement infrastructure; key performance indicators, e.g. ITU Key Performance Indicators in Smart Sustainable Cities, UN Habitat City Prosperity Index; and assessment tools, e.g. Microsoft CityNext Assessment.

7.5. Element 3 – Transformation
Transformation refers to the process of building different types of capacities for the city to become smarter and for improving quality of life of its citizens. Specific studied attributes relevant to the transformation process include: 1) approaches; 2) stakeholders; 3) governance; and 4) maturity models. 

7. Conceptual Framework
explained and illustrated below based on the findings from the research and policy review and analyses of case studies.

7.5.1. Attribute 8 – Approaches
Two broad approaches to Smart City development are top-down and bottom-up. A top-down approach presents the following characteristics: 1) the strategy is developed by government; 2) government provides incentives and possibly funding; 3) government publicizes the initiatives to help their adoption; and 4) usually this type of approaches provides a more technical vision. A bottom-up approach exhibits other characteristics, such as: 1) city processes are carried out based on contributions from various actors, including creative communities, research institutions and the private sector; 2) market oriented publicprivate-partnership are created by partner initiatives; and 3) initiatives are originated and conducted through citizen engagement.

Other approaches include: 1) an integrated approach to providing a platform for businesses to develop required solutions; and 2) a citizen-centric approach, meaning that citizens’ needs are placed at the forefront, and service providers share information to provide coherent and seamless services, rather than operating in multiple service silos.

7.5.2. Attribute 9 – Stakeholders
Stakeholder engagement is a crucial requirement for the success of Smart City development. Four major stakeholders’ attributes to consider include: 1) Types; 2) Roles; 3) Activities; and 4) Partnerships. Each of them is illustrated below.
Stakeholder’s Types – Examples include citizens, municipal or local government, city officials, private enterprises, civil society, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), water providers, energy providers, foreigner experts and consultants, non-government organizations (NGOs), community leaders, and international organizations.
Stakeholders’ Roles – Examples include 1) Project Owner – mostly played by the municipal government; 2) Project Performers – enterprises contributing to project implementation; 3) Strategic Partners – companies providing some type of basic services, e.g. ISPs, energy and water providers; 4) Individual Contributors – citizens actively participating in designing Smart City solutions through various mechanisms such as crowdsourcing, gamification, social networks and social media; 5) Civil Society – playing a key role in implementing participatory processes for urban governance; and 6) Customers – comprising the recipient of Smart City solutions, including citizens, visitors, private companies, etc.
Stakeholders’ Activities – Stakeholders are required to conduct three major activities: 1) interact; 2) network; and 3) collaborate.
Stakeholders’ Partnerships – Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) or Public-Private-People-Partnerships (PPPPs) are essential for Smart City development. PPPs open the provision of public services to private companies, while the public authority remains responsible for enabling the policy environment and regulatory framework that protects the rights and interests of citizens and investors. PPPs and PPPPs enable governments to leverage on private sector and citizens’ capacities to innovate, invent and bring in efficient solutions.

7.5.3. Attribute 10 – Governance
Governance is another major attribute for the successful completion of Smart City initiatives. Six attributes are included to define governance: 1) Requirements; 2) Principles; 3) Vision; 4) Resource Management; 5) Models; and 6) Government Role. Each of them is presented and illustrated below.
Governance Requirements – The main governance requirements for Smart City development includes: 1) creation of a central agency responsible for coordination of initiatives likely implemented by different partners; 2) centralized e-Governance with a comprehensive strategy to enable effective and optimized coordination and control; 3) strong leadership; 4) well designed governance model; 5) defining clear governance principles; 6) adopting resilient processes; 7) defining performance measures of city services; and 8) enabling continuous improvements. In addition, there should be a clear distinction between responsibilities of central and local governments. While the former are responsible for promoting labor mobility, developing infrastructure and removing impediments for internal trade; the latter are responsible for improving quality of life of their residents and minimize their costs of living. Local governments are also responsible for making cities “work better” by improving the provision of local public services, such as sewage and public transport. In particular in developing countries, local governments also need to ensure the needed urban policy interventions for limiting urbanization to already crowded cities.

Governance Principles – Examples include efficiency, effectiveness, transparency, collaborative, open, accountability, good governance, and governance by incentives rather than governance by enforcement. In addition, another governance principle refers to stakeholder engagement, e.g. involving national, regional and local civil officials, people ownership, and business collaboration. Finally, governance through be enriched through public participation made possible by social media and by making government information available in the public domain.

Governance Vision – A vision for Smart City development should be produced through participatory governance mechanisms. An example vision, “creating citizen-centric, efficient, accountable, transparent, inclusive, creative city, with a sense of safety and security”.

Resource Management – Governance approaches should be considered to manage four types of resources: 1) Infrastructure, e.g. establishing a city command center to host the intelligence and governance of the city; 2) Partners – a possible approach is delegating the responsibility for the management of the project to a private partner; 3) Data – opening access to government data; and 4) Services – implementing a centralized effective, open and collaborative approach to service delivery.
Governance Model – A governance model should include the definition of: 1) an organizational model identifying partners, their roles and responsibilities; 2) rules for decision-making; 3) execution mechanisms;  4) business processes; and 5) procedures for project management, monitoring and evaluation.

Government Role – As a major stakeholder, local government plays important roles including: 1) making choices where to locate infrastructure investments and where to improve services; 2) ensuring efficient and transparent policy making for managing urbanization; 3) enacting policies to increase energy efficiency and to promote cleaner energy sources for electricity generation, buildings and urban transport; 4) adopting multi-sectoral policies for sustainable, green urban growth; 5) encouraging compact and efficient cities through land and housing regulations as well as through market-based incentives; 6) developing strong institutions and partnerships among the public sector, private sector and civil society; 7) building capacity of local actors; 8) prioritizing investments in core systems, such as transport, education, public safety and health; 9) identifying the political agenda and ensuring project alignment; 10) conducting a self-assessment including a review of the government’s situation; and 11) implementing a quality management system.

7. Conceptual Framework

7.5.4. Attribute 11 – Maturity Models
Measuring and monitoring enables to assess the progress towards the achievement of goals and provide feedback in case the project needs alignment or reviews. Maturity models provide a reference model for measuring progress. Other instruments are also applied and proved to be useful. Indeed, the various attributes of a Smart City need to be identified and can be used as part of the metrics and reference model for defining the smartness of a city. For this study, the Maturity Models attribute defines possible features related to measuring and monitoring Smart City initiatives. We describe the attribute based on the following perspectives: 1) Aim; 2) Tools; and 3) Indicators. Each is presented and illustrated below.

Aim – Several tools are used for measuring and monitoring. The aim of applying such tools include: to measure the readiness of a city for implementing a given initiative; to measure the degree of smartness of the city on a given area; to measure the level of maturity of service delivery or policy area of a city compared to other cities; to help choose the priority domains for a city; and to assist in developing the guidelines for Smart City implementation.

Tools – Several tools exists for measuring and monitoring Smart City initiatives, some commercial and others developed by governments:  { IBM provides a set of tools that includes: 1) Smarter City Assessment, which enables collecting information about operating city systems; 2) Smarter City Maturity Model,  which assesses and helps build a roadmap for the city; 3) Smarter City Actionable Business Architecture, which defines relationships between different city domains; and 4) Municipal Reference Model, which describes a set of city concepts, tools, and offered services. { The Government of Scotland and Scottish Cities Alliance defined and use the Smart Cities Maturity Model – comprising six maturity stages: level 1 or Ad-hoc, level 2 or Opportunistic, level 3 or Purposeful and Repeatable, level 4 or Operationalized, and level 5 or Optimized; and five dimensions: 1) Strategic Intent; 2) Data; 3) Technology; 4) Governance and Service Delivery Models; and 5) Citizens and Business Engagement. They also defined and use the Self-Assessment Tool that comprises three stages to be completed through a questionnaire.  { The Government of India provides the Smart City Model, which comprises four stages: The model comprises four stages: 1) Access; 2) Efficiency; 3) Behavior; and 4) System Focus. It also defines application domains including transport, spatial planning, storm water drainage, water supply, solid waste management, sewage, electricity, telephone, and Wi-Fi.  { ITU defines Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for smart sustainable cities. The proposed indicators focuses on a set of ICT related indicators for smart sustainable cities but does not cover all KPIs of cities contained in the ISO standard 37120. The indicators are grouped into the following categories: 1) Information and Communication Technology; 2) Environmental Sustainability; 3) Productivity; 4) Quality of Life; 5) Equity and Social Inclusion; and 6) Physical Infrastructure. { The World Bank proposes to measure the “urban metabolism” of a city, analyzing how cities consume, produce and transform materials and energy. They highlight that all cities should begin measuring material flows and other environmental and social data, and that all cities need a credible and standardized “urban resilience index”. { A number of good practices implemented or adopted by other cities can also serve as a relevant bench learning tools. Relevant good practices are related to governance, transport, spatial-planning, water management, sewage, data and ICT infrastructure, electricity, mobility, environment sustainability, social sustainability, quality of life, citizens participation and engagement, as well as contextualization practices.

Indicators – Examples include the number of stakeholders engaged, number of bottom-up implemented initiatives, levels of investments, number of established partnerships, and number of city domains addressed and improved.

7.6. Element 4 – Outcomes
Outcomes refer to results produced by the Smart City transformation processes. Outcomes include two attributes: innovations and benefits. Each of them is explained below based on the findings from the research and policy literature reviews and case study development.

7.6.1. Attribute 12 – Innovations
ICT and new technologies have the ability to provide environment-friendly and economically viable innovative solutions for cities. Innovations were studied through three perspectives: 1) Strategies;  2) Processes; and 3) Mechanisms. Each of the perspectives is presented and illustrated below.

Innovation Strategies – Examples include: 1) outsourcing services using outcomes-based contracts;  2) providing solutions for service integration, both back office and more increasingly front office services; 3) providing online service delivery; 4) releasing data to enable new services to be developed and citizens to make informed decisions; 5) reducing demand on given services, e.g. promoting independent living facilitating elderly people to live longer with less support from the state; and 6) promoting user-driven innovation.

Innovation Processes – Innovation can be supported during all processes of Smart City development. Innovation processes are classified and illustrated as follows:  { Innovation in Planning – organizing focus groups, consultations and workshops for city planning; and defining a city plan that is practicable, replicable and scalable. In addition, the results of planning should also be innovative; for example: planning the creation of living and working integrated environment for IT professionals; a planned city focused on tourism, planed in an artificial island created by reclaimed land; a planned city focused on energy-based economy; a planned city focused on digital-media innovation; a planned city focused on knowledge-innovation based economy to reduce the dependence on oil and gas; a planned city focused on its historic patrimony as a way to leverage its economy.  { Innovation in Regulations – examples include a credit system for industries based on reducing carbon emissions; a legal framework for implementation and adoption of a digital plan; and regulation for the construction of green buildings. { Innovation in Service Delivery – examples include establishing an eco-system for public-private-people partnership for service delivery; a mobile app for tracking the trajectory of public buses developed by an entrepreneur based on open data; an electric escalator, part of public transport system, facilitating the move of people from-to poor neighborhoods in the city; public transport system for the city; living labs for testing new products and services; and seamless one-stop access to public services through phone a unique, easy to remember phone number.  { Innovation in Citizen Participation – examples include promoting citizen participation in policy making for defining mayors’ agendas, and crowdsourcing of a virtual map for raising awareness about environmental issues, or unsafe neighborhoods in the city.

Innovation Mechanisms – Examples include test beds, living labs, crowdsourcing, and user communities. Innovation is facilitated by providing access to government data through open data initiatives. 

7. Conceptual Framework
important mechanism is an open eco-system, which needs to be deployed, organized and monitored. Usually, open eco-systems serve as test beds and living labs, and can be fostered through incentives and policies.

7.6.2. Attribute 13 – Benefits
Major benefits of Smart City development is to foster economic and sustainable development of cities while protecting the environment and improving the quality of life of its inhabitants. Benefits of successful Smart City initiatives can be achieved at different levels. We classify benefits into: 1) Economic; 2) Environmental; 3) Human Development; 4) Quality of Life; 5) Basic Services; 6) Digital Services; and 7) Governance. Each category is presented and explained below.

Economic Benefits – Examples include promoting the ICT industry and economic growth, having attractive conditions for businesses, promoting economic sustainability and growth, promoting business in the energy sector, accelerating the development of new businesses, promoting the city through environment related attractions, promoting economic development through reducing dependency on oil and gas, promoting the Meetings, Incentives, Conferencing and Exhibitions (MICE) industry, increasing employment opportunities, having creative enterprise clusters, accelerating new business start-ups, engaging and leveraging Small Medium Enterprises (SME)s community, and providing new economic opportunities.

Environmental Benefits – Examples include saving energy in buildings, promoting smart buildings saving water and energy, promoting green practices for construction, promoting the production of green products, raising citizens’ awareness about improving urban environment, promoting the use of renewable energy, promoting green spaces, reducing carbon emissions, and planning urban ecology through harmonized ecosystems.

Human Capital Benefits – Examples include having Research & Development clusters, promoting technopreneurs, empowering citizens leveraging on their talent, promoting Knowledge Society based on green related issues, cultivating good social values related with the environment, creating new educational institutions, providing lifelong learning opportunities, and having and anchoring scientists and engineering workforce.

Quality of Life Benefits – Examples include enhancing public safety and security, improving traffic conditions, reducing time required for moving from home to office, improving health conditions of dwellers due by accessing to water and sanitation services, regenerating historical places, making the city more attractive and livable, improving social equality, better community connectivity, binding disperse and separate communities, accelerating access to safety solutions, and improving the construction of buildings by enhancing indoor conditions.

Basic Services-related Benefits – Examples include facilitating efficient waste management; providing energy management system to control consumption; providing efficient energy system; providing uninterrupted power supply providing central water management system; providing sewage system to keep the city healthy and safe; providing infrastructure for water, waste, communications, energy, and transport; building new residential and commercial areas; building working spaces, e.g. laboratories, offices; building sport-facilities, e.g. equestrian polo ground, motor race circuits, gyms, etc.; delivering resilient public services; and offering decent living conditions to every resident, e.g. good quality and affordable housing, access to cost efficient physical, social and institutional infrastructures such as adequate and quality water supply, sanitation, 24*7 electric supply, clean air, quality education, cost efficient health care, dependable security, entertainment, sports, and fast and efficient mobility.

Digital Services-related Benefits – Examples include facilitating citizen access to public services like water and sanitation; having real time information about public services, e.g. transport; reducing the burden of emergency calls; eliminating duplicated services; filling gaps in service delivery; developing services to local business; providing enhanced communications services; deploying advanced ICT infrastructure including Wi-Fi coverage the whole city; facilitating electronic service delivery by having digital ID for citizens and offering one-stop access to public services; improving customers’ satisfaction, and providing access to collaborative e-learning tool contributing to build human capital.

Governance Benefits – Examples include fostering citizen participation in public decision-making process, improving transparency, facilitating access to city data through open-data initiatives, fostering citizen participation in city sustainable development strategy, engaging stakeholders and building consortiums, enhancing collaboration with non-government actors, identifying and engaging local investment portfolios, gaining knowledge about dwellers and people living in neighborhoods and their needs, sharing good practices with other cities, making more efficient use of public resources, facilitating government agencies to focus on mission-related work, facilitating proactive urban development through city planning and provision of city information and services, monitoring and analyzing energy consumption for city planning, promoting innovations, and providing replicable solutions.

7.7. Element 5 – Measurement
Two types of measurement exercises are mandatory, one at the initial stage and one at the final stage of Smart City transformation. The aim of the former is to assess the context, a kind of readiness assessment, analyzing the status of the city capacity at the various dimensions – economic, people, environment, mobility, governance and living. The aim of the latter is to measure the developed capacities. Any Smart City initiative should aim at improving capacities of more than one type.

8. Policy Recommendations
Based on the project findings from research literature review (Section 4), policy literature review (Section 5), case study development (Section 6), and the proposed conceptual framework for Smart Cities for Sustainable Development (Section 7), this section provides some policy recommendations for building Smart Cities for Sustainable Development. Following the structure of the conceptual framework, we provide recommendations related to the context (Section 8.1), inputs (Section 8.2), transformation (Section 8.3) and outcomes (Section 8.3). Relying on the vision of a Smart City as a transformation process, detailed recommendations are provided for transformation attributes.

8.1. Context
Policy recommendations related to Context include: { Prepare a solid foundation for Smart City initiatives, by gaining a deep understanding of the local context through readiness assessment. Possible assessment areas include: • priority domains, values, drivers, challenges, and risks; • city stakeholders and their level of preparedness for Smart City initiatives, including their ICT-related capabilities; • current legal and regulatory framework for Smart City initiatives; • funding mechanisms and opportunities, as well as local investment portfolios; • current ICT infrastructure deployed in the city and in government agencies, and their capabilities, including the support they provide for delivering other public services such as energy, water, transport, among others; • current public services in given priority domains and possible areas for improvement. { Design the readiness assessment exercise with support of a multi-disciplinary team of qualified professionals including representatives from government, academia, industry and civil society; maximize the number of represented stakeholders in terms of their number, sectors and representations. { In collaboration with local academics, supported by international experts, if needed, identify a set of Smart City good practices to be used by the city for bench-learning purposes. Good practices should include cases from two types of cities: 1) cities with similar conditions as the local context and 2) cities that are excelling in a given domain of interest to the local context.

Identify a set of cities at the regional, national and international level, with whom the city can promote collaboration on Smart City development. { If the city is part of a regional network, dedicate efforts to asses if other cities in the network decided to embrace similar initiatives and analyze how to leverage such initiatives through city-level collaboration.  { Initiate sensitization campaigns and educate the society on issues relevant to smart sustainable cities, including energy consumption and the use of renewable energy sources, carbon footprints, green areas, water consumption, and waste management. Dedicate special efforts to raising awareness and educate children at schooling age. { Leverage on the changes introduced by Smart City development, as an opportunity to instill civic values in the society.

8.2. Inputs
Policy recommendations related to Inputs include: { Based on the local conditions, conduct a feasibility study to understand the type of ICTs capabilities, and capabilities of other technologies used to deliver basic services, like energy, water, sanitation, construction, etc.; that can be adopted in the city. { Review good practices implemented in other cities of interest, including tools and technologies applied in the targeted domain. { Based on the existing regulatory and legal framework surveyed as part of context readiness assessment, identify and address regulatory and legal gaps and weaknesses; in particular, related to the following areas: • public-private partnerships; • administrative simplification, with special focus on businesses and SMEs; • whole-of-government approach; • open access to government data and information; • protection of intellectual property rights; and • privacy and security, among others. { In collaboration with academia, the private sector and international organizations, design and implement initiatives dedicated to building institutional capacity of the local government as a whole and of selected government agencies. Among others, possible areas for institutional capacity building include the adoption of: • social media and procedures and tools for citizen participation; • open data initiatives; • big data and data analytics; • standards for Smart City initiatives; • approaches for performance measurement; • methodologies and tools for program and project management. { When identifying tools and technologies to be adopted, prioritize those that: 1) are based on open standards, 2) fit within the overall architecture, 3) fulfill with interoperability requirements, and 4) avoid future lock-in scenarios from vendors. { Engage academia and the private sector in efforts in localizing and adopting new tools in the local context.

8. Policy Recommendations
When adopting new technical tools, ensure that users can effectively and efficiently use them. If needed, design trainings on such tools and hire qualified experts that can support the adoption and usage of the tools on operational scenarios.  { Define human-capacity building programs for each group of stakeholders based on: 1) new trends to be adopted in the city, 2) the target audience, and 3) training needs assessment conducted among the target audience.  { In collaboration with academia, the private sector and international organizations, design and implement initiatives dedicated to building human capacity among government officials at all levels, particularly policy makers, project leaders, and public managers. Possible areas for human-capacity building include: • leadership; • strategic planning; • stakeholder engagement and citizen participation; • innovation; • cultural change; • critical thinking and systems thinking; • scenario planning models, and urban simulation methods and tools; • data analytics and evidence-based policy making; • program and project management; • open data; and • cloud computing. { In collaboration with academia, the private sector and international organizations, design and implement initiatives dedicated to building human capacity for the relevant external stakeholders, including: •  entrepreneurs – for them to be able to contribute to Smart City development, and • citizens – for them to be able to consume and benefit from the produced results. { In collaboration with academia, private sector and civil society, dedicate special efforts to embed a lifelong learning culture in the society supported by the provisioning of collaborative e-learning platforms. Learning offers should focus on knowledge relevant to the local culture and economy and available in local language.

8.3. Transformation
Policy recommendations related to Transformation are further classified into: 1) Approaches; 2) Stakeholders; 3) Governance; and 4) Maturity Models. Each of them presented in the following sections.

8.3.1. Approaches
Policy recommendations related to Approaches include: { Smart City development requires a combined approach. The foundations and the “big picture” for Smart City development need to follow a top-down, government-led approach, while specific initiatives in a given domain can be successfully conducted following a bottom-up approach.

It is government responsibility to provide an innovation eco-system and stimulate bottom-up innovative solutions for Smart City development. { There are no off-the-shelf solutions ready for adoption for Smart City development. Every solution or good practice needs to be localized to the context. { Be aware that a city does not become smarter just by implementing technical solutions; other factors, like social, cultural, economic and environmental are to be addressed and considered. { Knowing that any change in the physical transformation of a city produces changes in the economy and the society, systems thinking is needed to plan, design and assess Smart City initiatives.  { Demystify the complexity of problems and lack of resources as mechanisms to avoid changes, since not all city problems are complex or require a lot of resources for solving them. { Break down the lack of action and just define what is needed, since the risk of doing nothing is bigger than the risk of doing things wrong. { Keep in mind that it is impossible to reach a scenario with all warrantees for innovations not to fail, and make the decision to start, i.e. to innovate, the first requirement is to start.

As part of approaches, some policy recommendations related to strategy include: { In consultation with city stakeholders, define a clear vision of what the city wants for its future and define a strategy and a well-defined plan for implementing the vision. { Ensure that the vision is not merely focusing on technology, but highlights improvements in other city dimensions, like environment, quality of life and people, among others.  { Define a Smart City strategy thinking in the dual commitment to short- and long-term results. The strategy should not be focused on simply the next achievable steps. { Before preparing the strategy, dedicate sufficient amount of resources to rigorous identify and learn from global good practices to be able to identify advanced solutions.  { Ensure that the Smart City strategy is aligned with overall strategy of the city and region. { Ensure that the defined city plan is doable and scalable. { Avoid the following scenarios when defining Smart City initiatives: • initiatives driven by a restrictive vision focused only on technology deployment; • initiatives driven by personal objectives; • initiatives driven by ideologies and political interests; • initiatives shall pay special attention to ensure city and service resilience; and • initiatives are highly coherent and integrated with city policies and plans. { Prepare a detailed business plan including considerations about the long term sustainability of the delivered solutions. { Use analytical tools to compare the value of potentially unrelated projects to decide which ones to prioritize. { Be aware that the planning process will need continuous reviews, mainly taking into account citizens’ feedback. { As part of capacity-building efforts, create policies and environments for attracting talents, qualified professionals and IT players. { Ensure effective communication between city planners and citizens.

8. Policy Recommendations

8.3.2. Stakeholders
Policy recommendations related to Stakeholders include: { Take into account that inclusion and participation are important targets for successful Smart City programs. { Ensure stakeholders’ acceptance, commitment and contribution to Smart City initiatives through active mechanisms of stakeholder engagement. Provide mechanisms to facilitate their interactions, networking and collaboration to leverage on private sector and citizens’ capacities to innovate, invent and bring in efficient solutions. { Create a sense of citizens’ ownership and commitment by empowering them through active participation. Organize and maintain open discussions with and awareness campaigns for citizens { Define mechanisms for strengthening the capacity of academia in conducting multi-disciplinary Smart City research for them to be able to play to major roles: 1) think tank for government, and 2) capacity builder for other stakeholders.  { Create and rely on teams of highly-qualified and motivated professionals with deep commitment to deliver public value. { Identify and leverage on inspiring leaders (‘city champions’). { Accelerate, through policies and incentives, new business start-ups, engage and leverage on Small Medium Enterprises (SME)s community, providing new economic opportunities for businesses. { Empower citizens leveraging on their talent and promote techno-preneurs.

8.3.3. Governance
Policy recommendations related to Governance include: { Be aware that governance is responsible for: • defining a comprehensive strategy to enable effective and optimized coordination and control; • ensuring strong leadership; • defining a well-designed governance model with clear rules for decision-making; • defining clear governance principles; • adopting procedures for project management, monitoring and evaluation; and • adopting resilient processes, solutions and services. { In consultation with stakeholders, define clear governance principles from the earliest stage of the project and ensure that major stakeholders responsible for governance adhere to and practice such principles.  { Define clear roles and responsibilities for each type of stakeholder. In particular define: • roles and responsibilities for the project owner, project performers, partners, contributors, the civil society, and service recipients; and • the proper role for private sector actors’ interventions – define where, when and how they will collaborate; consider engaging the private sector in testing solutions. { Raise awareness about the role and responsibilities of the local government. Example responsibilities of local government include: • reinventing public service with a moral purpose – a new agenda for delivering public value;

• developing strong institutions and partnerships among the public sector, private sector and civil society, which can act as “learning systems” – systems able to bring their own transformation to better perform in a continuous changing context; • building capacity of local actors; • enabling the policy environment and regulatory framework that: a) enables contributions from the private sector, including SMEs, through public-private-partnerships (PPPs) and b) protects the rights and interests of citizens and investors; • designing regulations and incentives encouraging compact and efficient cities through land and housing regulations as well as through market-based incentives; • ensuring efficient and transparent policy making for managing urbanization, including enacting policies to increase energy efficiency, to promote cleaner energy sources and sustainable and green urban growth; • initiating the planning process of Smart City initiatives and inviting the private sector to help implementing the plan and citizens to provide feedback; • making decisions related to the future; being aware that if the government is unable or unwilling to make decisions, the market will speculate and will try to take advantage; decisions include making choices where to locate infrastructure investments and where to improve services; • prioritizing investments in core systems, such as transport, education, public safety and health; • identifying the political agenda and ensuring project alignment; • conducting a self-assessment including a review of the government’s situation; and • adopting a quality management system. { Facilitate distributed execution implemented by different stakeholders, supported by a central coordination. Establish a governance committee, with broad representation of government levels and societal sectors to ensure coordination and alignment of activities performed by internal and external stakeholders. { Promote trust among stakeholders by promoting transparency, accountability and adherence to the pre-defined governance values. { Have a clear distinction between responsibilities of central and local governments. While the former are responsible for developing infrastructure and removing impediments for internal trade; the latter are responsible for improving quality of life of their residents, minimize their costs of living, and making their cities “work better” by improving the provision of local public services.  { Enrich governance through public participation made possible by social media and by making government data and information available in the public domain.  { Open access to government data by implementing open government data initiatives, as mechanisms for increasing participation, and leveraging innovation through the co-creation of public services. { Implement a centralized effective, open and collaborative approach to service delivery.

8.3.4. Maturity Models
Policy recommendations related to Maturity Models include: { Measure the “urban metabolism” of a city, analyzing how cities consume, produce and transform materials and energy. { Define and adopt a performance measurement system, including the definition of key performance indicators for Smart City programs and projects.

8. Policy Recommendations
Conduct efforts to make timely progress in more than one city dimension; it is counter-productive to advance one characteristic while neglecting to advance others. However, not all characteristics need to have the same level of maturity; stakeholders need to define and agree on the priority areas. { Adopt a maturity model for Smart City initiatives. Be aware that a leapfrogging approach is counterproductive and not recommended – it is not possible to advance more than one step in each stage, due to managerial, technological and financial capacity and due to the counter-productive effect (will put excessive pressure on many city systems and functions that normal day-to-day operations may be at risk). { Enable a culture and mechanisms for enabling continuous improvements. { Establish mechanisms to measure innovations, and if deployed the innovation eco-system.

8.4. Outcomes
Policy recommendations related to Outcomes include: { Establish, organize and deploy an open innovation eco-system enabling public-private-people partnership (PPPP) for service delivery.  { Promote innovation mechanisms, like hackathons for developing mobile apps based on open government data, crowdsourcing of ideas, public sector innovation awards, awards for citizens’ contributions, etc. { In collaboration with external stakeholders, establish living labs for the co-creation, exploration, experimentation and evaluation of innovative ideas, scenarios, concepts and testing of technological instruments and artefacts in real life use cases. { Promote user-driven innovation processes, enabled by providing access to government data through open data initiatives.  { Deliver innovative solutions in relevant service areas, e.g. promoting independent living, facilitating elderly people to live longer with less support from the state. { Deliver e-learning platforms, as mechanisms for building human capital and fostering innovation. { Contribute to establishing and developing Research & Development (R&D) clusters, ensuring scientists and engineering workforce, and providing mechanisms to anchoring qualified experts. { Promote Knowledge Society based on green-related issues, cultivating good social values related with the environment, sustainable practices, green IT practices, creating new educational institutions, and providing lifelong learning opportunities. { Implement a knowledge sharing platform to promote Smart City good practices of the city and the region. Relevant good practices are related to: governance, transport, spatial-planning, watermanagement, sewage, electricity, mobility, environment sustainability, social sustainability, quality of life, citizens’ participation and engagement, data and ICT infrastructure, and contextualization practices. { Create synergies for deploying city technology infrastructure and building city institutional capacity, and create structures on early stages providing a common platform to host services, e.g. middleware for Smart City services, and information exchange platforms.

B. Policy Literature Review
B.1. Reviewed Policy Papers

Smart_Sustainable_Cities_v2final.pdf