IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pop/journl/v2y2018i1p87-99.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond indicators, new methods in Smart city assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Boglarka BARSI

    (Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Gyor, Hungary)

Abstract

In the past years, cities are increasingly aware of the concept of “smart city” and actively developing strategies towards the goal of becoming “smart” and manage, more efficiently, city resources and addressing development and inclusion challenges. The growth of smart cities is helping the increase of government use of ICTs to improve political participation, implement public policies or provide public sector services. There are also sharp critics of smart city concept, regarding it only a marketing tool applied by all the cities using some forms of ICT, as a label or brand of successfulness. That is why the elaboration of smart city assessment tools and performance measurement systems are needed in order to sort out real smart cities and effective smart city methods and solutions. Various evaluation methods, models for understanding and conceptualizing smart cities have been developed to explain smart city concepts, which aim to define their scope, objectives and architectures. The multidimensionality of smartness coupled with cities’ complexity, calls for specific assessments able to distinguish between different dimensions of smartness. The usage of indicators is relatively simple, clear, easily interpretable, easy to understand, visualize, compare and reproducible in time and space. Still, from the review of different smart city rankings and indexes some limits and problems can be derived. A meaningful smart city assessment method should be able to measure individual well-being and satisfaction in the city in a comparable and dynamic way which is a very complex goal. Methodological limits, practical and economical obstacles of data collection at settlement level are also affecting the elaboration of better evaluation system. More specific, focusing on city’s vision, strength and weaknesses, using bottom-up approach assessment methods are needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Boglarka BARSI, 2018. "Beyond indicators, new methods in Smart city assessment," Smart Cities and Regional Development (SCRD) Journal, Smart-EDU Hub, Faculty of Public Administration, National University of Political Studies & Public Administration, vol. 2(1), pages 87-99, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:pop:journl:v:2:y:2018:i:1:p:87-99
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.scrd.eu/index.php/scrd/article/view/31/27
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://www.scrd.eu/index.php/scrd/article/view/31
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Konstantinos Kourtzanidis & Komninos Angelakoglou & Vasilis Apostolopoulos & Paraskevi Giourka & Nikolaos Nikolopoulos, 2021. "Assessing Impact, Performance and Sustainability Potential of Smart City Projects: Towards a Case Agnostic Evaluation Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-38, July.
    2. Yufei Fang & Zhiguang Shan, 2022. "How to Promote a Smart City Effectively? An Evaluation Model and Efficiency Analysis of Smart Cities in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-23, May.
    3. Ayyoob Sharifi & Zaheer Allam, 2022. "On the taxonomy of smart city indicators and their alignment with sustainability and resilience," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(5), pages 1536-1555, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    evaluation; individual aspects; limits of indicators;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O35 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Social Innovation

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pop:journl:v:2:y:2018:i:1:p:87-99. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Professor Catalin Vrabie (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fasnsro.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.