Do Smart Cities Invest in Smarter Policies? Learning From the Past,Planning for the Future

Abstract

Research on Smart Cities has come of age. Intense discussion on this topic has been ongoing for years, and the academic prominence of this concept has also engendered several policy initiatives inspired by this label at different administrative levels. However, to date, no large-scale evaluation of the relationship between urban smartness and smart urban policies has been attempted. This article aims at filling this gap. By building on a solid definition of Smart Cities, the article tests the empirical relationship between urban smartness and the intensity of Smart City policies. A novel data set on four different types of policies and smart urban characteristics is assembled for 314 European Union cities. Empirical results suggest that Smart City policies are more likely to be designed and implemented in cities that are already endowed with smart characteristics. Our findings also point to a higher probability that Smart City policies are implemented in denser and wealthier urban areas. These empirical results call for further research on the real effects of actual implemented Smart City policies, with the aim to verify the potential of this policy concept as an overall urban development model encompassing the main drivers of endogenous urban growth.

Keywords

smart city urban smartness smart city policy policy evaluation policy intensity policy determinants

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Akçomak

ter Weel

(2012). The impact of social capital on crime: Evidence from the Netherlands. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 42, 323–340.

Angelidou

(2014). Smart city policies: A spatial approach. Cities, 41, S3–S11.

Berry

C. R.

Glaeser

E. L.

(2005). The divergence of human capital levels across cities. Papers in Regional Science, 84, 407–444.

Camagni

Capello

Caragliu

(2015). The rise of second-rank cities: What role for agglomeration economies? European Planning Studies, 23(6), 1069–1089.

Caragliu

Del Bo

(2015). Smart specialization strategies and smart cities: An evidence-based assessment of EU policies. In Kourtit

Nijkamp

Stough

(Eds.), The rise of the city (pp. 55–84). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.

Caragliu

Del Bo

Nijkamp

(2011). Smart cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology, 18, 65–82.

Caragliu

Del Bo

Nijkamp

(2012). A map of human capital in European cities. In Van Geenhuizen

(Ed.), Creative knowledge cities: Myths, visions and realities (pp. 213–250). London, England: Edward Elgar.

Ciccone

Hall

R. E.

(1996). Productivity and the density of economic activity. American Economic Review, 86, 54–70.

Clastres

(2011). Smart grids: Another step towards competition, energy security and climate change objectives. Energy Policy, 39, 5399–5408.

10.

Coleman

J. S.

(1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.

11.

Crivello

(2015). Urban policy mobilities: The case of Turin as a smart city. European Planning Studies, 23, 909–921.

12.

Deakin

Lombardi

Cooper

(2011). The IntelCities community of practice: The capacity-building, co-design, evaluation and monitoring of eGov services. Journal of Urban Technology, 18, 13–38.

13.

Dunteman

(1989). Principal components analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

14.

Dutton

W. H.

Blumler

J. G.

Kraemer

K. L.

(1987). Wired cities: Shaping the future of communications. Washington, DC: Annenberg School of Communications.

15.

Eghbal-Azar

Widlok

(2013). Potentials and limitations of mobile eye tracking in visitor studies: Evidence from field research at two museum exhibitions in Germany. Social Science Computer Review, 31, 103–118.

16.

European Parliament. (2014). Mapping smart cities in the E. Directorate general for internal policies, policy department A: Economic and scientific policy. Retrieved December 21, 2014, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies

17.

Fujita

(2015). Diversity and culture in knowledge creation in cities. Scienze Regionali—The Italian Journal of Regional Science, 14, 101–104.

18.

Geurs

K. T.

van Wee

(2004). Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography, 12, 127–140.

19.

Giffinger

Fertner

Kramar

Kalasek

Pichler-Milanović

Meijers

(2007). Smart cities. Ranking of European medium-sized cities. Centre of Regional Science of Vienna. Retrieved December 21, 2014, from www.smart-cities.eu

20.

Greater London Authority. (2015). Smart London vision. Retrieved May 8, 2015, from http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/business-economy/vision-and-strategy/smart-london

21.

Hollands

R. G.

(2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? City, 12, 303–320.

22.

Jantz

C. A.

Goetz

S. J.

Shelley

M. A.

(2003). “Using the SLEUTH urban growth model to simulate the impacts of future policy scenarios on urban land use in the Baltimore–Washington metropolitan area. Environment and Planning, B, 31, 251–271.

23.

Jung

C. S.

(2014). Extending the theory of goal ambiguity to programs: Examining the relationship between goal ambiguity and performance. Public Administration Review, 74, 205–219.

24.

Kaiser

H. F.

(1961). A note on Guttman’s lower bound for the number of common factors. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 33, 233–236.

25.

Kitchin

(2014). The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal, 79, 1–14.

26.

Komninos

(2002). Intelligent cities: Innovation, knowledge systems and digital spaces. London, England: Routledge.

27.

Komninos

(2009). Intelligent cities: Towards interactive and global innovation environments. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1, 337–355.

28.

Kwon

Berry

F. S.

Feiock

R. C.

(2009). Understanding the adoption and timing of economic development strategies in US cities using innovation and institutional analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 967–988.

29.

Landabaso

(2014). Time for the real economy: The need for new forms of public entrepreneurship. Scienze Regionali—The Italian Journal of Regional Science, 13, 127–140.

30.

Lennert

Van Hamme

Patris

Smȩtkowski

Płoszaj

Gorzelak

… Ludlow

(2011). FOCI (Future Orientations for CIties): Final report. Luxembourg, ESPON. Retrieved from http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/AppliedResearch/FOCI/FOCI_final_report_20110111.pdf

31.

Leung

Lee

P. S. N.

(2012). Impact of internet literacy, internet addiction symptoms, and internet activities on academic performance. Social Science Computer Review, 30, 403–418.

32.

March

Ribera-Fumaz

(2014). Smart contradictions: The politics of making Barcelona a self-sufficient city. European Urban and Regional Studies, 1–15. doi:0969776414554488.

33.

McDavid

Huse

Hawthorne

(2013). In ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) (Ed.), Program evaluation and performance measurement: An introduction to practice. New York, NY: Sage.

34.

Municipality of Arnhem. (2013). GREEN DEAL smart energy cities. Retrieved May 8, 2015, from http://www.arnhem.nl/Ondernemen/Energie_Made_in_Arnhem/Deelname_green_deal_Smart_Energy_Cities

35.

Municipality of Lodz. (2011). Smart cities—The present and the future. Retrieved May 8, 2015, from http://en.greensys.pl/news/smart-cities-the-present-and-the-future/

36.

Nam

Pardo

T. A.

(2011). Smart city as urban innovation: Focusing on management, policy, and context. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (pp. 185–194). New York, NY: ACM.

37.

Newman

Beatley

Boyer

(2009). Resilient cities: Responding to peak oil and climate change. Washington, DC: Island Press.

38.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2005). Guide to measuring the information society. Working Party on Indicators for the Information Society. Retrieved December 21, 2014, from www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/12/36177203.pdf

39.

Oughton

Landabaso

Morgan

(2002). The regional innovation paradox: Innovation policy and industrial policy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27, 97–110.

40.

Poister

T. H.

(2010). The future of strategic planning in the public sector: Linking strategic management and performance. Public Administration Review, 70, s246–s254.

41.

Putnam

R. D.

Robert

Nanetti

(1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

42.

Shapiro

J. M.

(2008). Smart cities: Quality of life, productivity, and the growth effects of human capital. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88, 324–335.

43.

Shelton

Zook

Wiig

(2014). The ‘actually existing smart city.’ Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society. doi:10.1093/cjres/rsu026

44.

Smart Aarhus. (2015). Partnerships and principles. Retrieved May 8, 2015, from http://www.smartaarhus.eu/about-smart-aarhus/partnerships-and-principles/

45.

Söderström

Paasche

Klauser

(2014). Smart cities as corporate storytelling. City, 18, 307–320.

46.

Tajima

(2003). New estimates of the demand for urban green space: Implications for valuing the environmental benefits of Boston’s big dig project. Journal of Urban Affairs, 5, 641–655.

47.

Vanolo

(2014). Smartmentality: The smart city as disciplinary strategy. Urban Studies, 51, 883–898.

48.

Welch

E. W.

Hinnant

Jae Moon

(2005). Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government and trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 371–391.

49.

Winters

J. V.

(2011). Why are smart cities growing? Who moves and who stays. Journal of Regional Science, 51, 253–270.