IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pop/procee/v9y2021p285-296.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Smart city a solution for dealing with climate change in European cities

Author

Listed:
  • Oana Georgiana SECUIAN

    (National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, Bucharest, Romania)

  • Anamaria Gabriela VLAD

    (National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, Bucharest, Romania)

  • Mihaela VLAD

    (National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, Bucharest, Romania)

Abstract

Smart City – a concept for which there is no valid general definition, but has been defined by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development as initiatives or approaches that effectively leverage digitalisation to boost citizen well-being and deliver more efficient, sustainable and inclusive urban services and environments as part of a collaborative, multi-stakeholder process. This broad area has six pillars, including Smart Environment, which is the one that approaches the fight against climate change. Therefore, the objective of this article is to present the positive externalities of the implementation of policies regarding Smart Cities at central level in order to reduce the negative effects caused by climate change. Smart cities create a clean and healthy environment for the development of its citizens, promoting alternative solutions to combat the disastrous impact of industrialization in modern times. Research results show that using technology in various forms can significantly reduce environmental problems and improve quality of life.

Suggested Citation

  • Oana Georgiana SECUIAN & Anamaria Gabriela VLAD & Mihaela VLAD, 2021. "Smart city a solution for dealing with climate change in European cities," Smart Cities International Conference (SCIC) Proceedings, Smart-EDU Hub, Faculty of Public Administration, National University of Political Studies & Public Administration, vol. 9, pages 285-296, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:pop:procee:v:9:y:2021:p:285-296
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.scrd.eu/index.php/scic/article/view/373/338
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.scrd.eu/index.php/scic/article/view/373
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. S. A. Montzka & E. J. Dlugokencky & J. H. Butler, 2011. "Non-CO2 greenhouse gases and climate change," Nature, Nature, vol. 476(7358), pages 43-50, August.
    2. Tien Ming Lee & Ezra M. Markowitz & Peter D. Howe & Chia-Ying Ko & Anthony A. Leiserowitz, 2015. "Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(11), pages 1014-1020, November.
    3. Sander L van der Linden & Anthony A Leiserowitz & Geoffrey D Feinberg & Edward W Maibach, 2015. "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-8, February.
    4. Aaron McCright & Riley Dunlap & Chenyang Xiao, 2013. "Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 119(2), pages 511-518, July.
    5. Stephan Lewandowsky & Gilles E. Gignac & Samuel Vaughan, 2013. "The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(4), pages 399-404, April.
    6. Tiago de Melo CARTAXO & Johana M. CASTILLA & Marcin DYMET & Kamrul HOSSAIN, 2021. "Digitalization and smartening sustainable city development: an investigation from the high north European cities," Smart Cities and Regional Development (SCRD) Journal, Smart-EDU Hub, Faculty of Public Administration, National University of Political Studies & Public Administration, vol. 5(1), pages 83-101, February.
    7. Gea Hoogendoorn & Bernadette Sütterlin & Michael Siegrist, 2020. "The climate change beliefs fallacy: the influence of climate change beliefs on the perceived consequences of climate change," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(12), pages 1577-1589, December.
    8. Stefano CARBONI, 2021. "Smart City - A new concept of green and technological city - A survey will explain the differences between two countries with a different vision of these cities," Smart Cities and Regional Development (SCRD) Journal, Smart-EDU Hub, Faculty of Public Administration, National University of Political Studies & Public Administration, vol. 5(1), pages 53-68, February.
    9. Takele Bekele BAYU, 2020. "Smart leadership for smart cities," Smart Cities and Regional Development (SCRD) Journal, Smart-EDU Hub, Faculty of Public Administration, National University of Political Studies & Public Administration, vol. 4(2), pages 41-62, June.
    10. Kees Jan van Groenigen & Craig W. Osenberg & Bruce A. Hungate, 2011. "Increased soil emissions of potent greenhouse gases under increased atmospheric CO2," Nature, Nature, vol. 475(7355), pages 214-216, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lawrence C. Hamilton, 2016. "Public Awareness of the Scientific Consensus on Climate," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(4), pages 21582440166, November.
    2. Tatyana Deryugina & Olga Shurchkov, 2016. "The Effect of Information Provision on Public Consensus about Climate Change," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, April.
    3. Matias Spektor & Guilherme N. Fasolin & Juliana Camargo, 2023. "Climate change beliefs and their correlates in Latin America," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    4. Douenne, Thomas & Fabre, Adrien, 2020. "French attitudes on climate change, carbon taxation and other climate policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    5. Athanasios Balafoutis & Bert Beck & Spyros Fountas & Jurgen Vangeyte & Tamme Van der Wal & Iria Soto & Manuel Gómez-Barbero & Andrew Barnes & Vera Eory, 2017. "Precision Agriculture Technologies Positively Contributing to GHG Emissions Mitigation, Farm Productivity and Economics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-28, July.
    6. Thomas, Melanee & DeCillia, Brooks & Santos, John B. & Thorlakson, Lori, 2022. "Great expectations: Public opinion about energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    7. Carisa Bergner & Bruce A. Desmarais & John Hird, 2019. "Speaking truth in power: Scientific evidence as motivation for policy activism," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 2(1).
    8. Heather W. Cann, 2021. "Policy or scientific messaging? Strategic framing in a case of subnational climate change conflict," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(5), pages 570-595, September.
    9. Lawrence C. Hamilton, 2018. "Self-assessed understanding of climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(2), pages 349-362, November.
    10. Aaron Drummond & Lauren C. Hall & James D. Sauer & Matthew A. Palmer, 2018. "Is public awareness and perceived threat of climate change associated with governmental mitigation targets?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 149(2), pages 159-171, July.
    11. Jessica E. Hughes & James D. Sauer & Aaron Drummond & Laura E. Brumby & Matthew A. Palmer, 2023. "Endorsement of scientific inquiry promotes better evaluation of climate policy evidence," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(6), pages 1-20, June.
    12. Gurdeep Singh Malhi & Manpreet Kaur & Prashant Kaushik, 2021. "Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture and Its Mitigation Strategies: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-21, January.
    13. Jason Gainous & Rodger A. Payne & Melissa K. Merry, 2021. "Do Source cues or frames matter? Convincing the public about the veracity of climate science," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1894-1906, July.
    14. Gordon Gauchat & Timothy O’Brien & Oriol Mirosa, 2017. "The legitimacy of environmental scientists in the public sphere," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 143(3), pages 297-306, August.
    15. Ting Liu & Nick Shryane & Mark Elliot, 2022. "Attitudes to climate change risk: classification of and transitions in the UK population between 2012 and 2020," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    16. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    17. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    18. Sacha Altay & Marlène Schwartz & Anne-Sophie Hacquin & Aurélien Allard & Stefaan Blancke & Hugo Mercier, 2022. "Scaling up interactive argumentation by providing counterarguments with a chatbot," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(4), pages 579-592, April.
    19. Le Yaouanq, Yves, 2018. "A Model of Ideological Thinking," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 85, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    20. Sander Linden & Anthony Leiserowitz & Geoffrey Feinberg & Edward Maibach, 2014. "How to communicate the scientific consensus on climate change: plain facts, pie charts or metaphors?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 255-262, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    environment; climate change; digitalisation; sustainability; pollution;
    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:procee:v:9:y:2021:p:285-296. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.