Search results

The purpose of this paper is to rethink the focus of the smart cities debate and to open it to policymaking and strategy considerations. To this end, the origins of what is termed normative bias in smart cities research are identified and a case made for a holistic, scalable and human-centred smart cities research agenda. Applicable across the micro, mezzo and macro levels of the context in which smart cities develop, this research agenda remains sensitive to the limitations and enablers inherent in these contexts. Policymaking and strategy consideration are incorporated in the agenda this paper advances, thus creating the prospect of bridging the normative and the empirical in smart cities research.

This paper queries the smart cities debate and, by reference to megacities research, argues that the smart city remains an overly normatively laden concept frequently discussed in separation from the broader socio-political and economic contexts in which it is embedded. By focusing on what is termed the normative bias of smart cities research, this paper introduces the nested clusters model. By advocating the inclusion of policymaking and strategy considerations in the smart cities debate, a case is made for a holistic, scalable and human-centred smart cities agenda focused, on the one hand, on individuals and citizens inhabiting smart cities and, on the other hand, on interdependencies that unfold between a given smart city and the context in which it is embedded.

This paper delineates the research focus and scope of the megacities and smart cities debates respectively. It locates the origins of normative bias inherent in smart cities research and, by making a case for holistic, scalable and human-centred smart cities research, suggests ways of bypassing that bias. It is argued that smart cities research has the potential of contributing to research on megacities (smart megacities and clusters), cities (smart cities) and villages (smart villages). The notions of policymaking and strategy, and ultimately of governance, are brought into the spotlight. Against this backdrop, it is argued that smart cities research needs to be based on real tangible experiences of individuals inhabiting rural and urban space and that it also needs to mirror and feed into policy-design and policymaking processes.

The paper stresses the need to explore the question of how the specific contexts in which cities/urban areas are located influence those cities/urban areas’ growth and development strategies. It also postulates new avenues of inter and multidisciplinary research geared toward building bridges between the normative and the empirical in the smart cities debate. More research is needed to advance these imperatives at the micro, mezzo and macro levels.

By highlighting the connection, relatively under-represented in the literature, between the normative and the empirical in smart cities research, this paper encourages a more structured debate between academia and policymakers focused on the sustainable development of cities/urban areas. In doing so, it also advocates policies and strategies conducive to strengthening individuals’/citizens’ ability to benefit from and contribute to smart cities development, thereby making them sustainable.

This paper makes a case for pragmatic and demand-driven smart cities research, i.e. based on the frequently very basic needs of individuals and citizens inhabiting not only urban but also rural areas. It highlights the role of basic infrastructure as the key enabler/inhibitor of information and communication technology-enhanced services. The nested clusters model introduced in this paper suggests that an intimate connection exists between individuals’ well-being, their active civic engagement and smart cities sustainability.

This paper delineates the relationship between megacities and smart cities research. It identifies the sources of what is termed normative bias in smart cities research. To address the implications of that bias, a nested clusters model for smart cities is introduced, i.e. a conceptual framework that allows us to redraw the debate on smart cities and establish a functional connection between the array of normatively laden ideas of what a smart city could be and what is feasible, and under which conditions at the policymaking level.

The purpose of this paper is to contextualise and examine critically the collection of the papers dealing with the broad and multi-faceted question of risk, threats and challenges governments are exposed to in the 21st century. To this end, the concept of ‘distributed risks and threats’ is introduced to account of challenges spread across the context, in which governments are embedded.

This paper offers a critical insight into the content of the issue.

The key argument that this paper advances is that while the nature of risks, threats and challenges that governments are exposed to today is qualitatively new and their scope unprecedented, a lot of governments’ capacity remains idle, i.e. ready to be deployed to address these risks, threats and challenges.

As a review paper, the points conveyed in this paper sketch and highlight, rather than explore in-depth, the possible and new research avenues that the collection of papers prompts.

This paper highlights that the – developed over the centuries – capacity of the government to act and address risks and threats is incommensurate with the agility of challenges borne in the 21st century.

This paper introduces the concept of ‘distributed risks and threats’ to account of the qualitatively new and hybrid challenges spread across the context, in which governments are embedded. This conceptualization of risks and threats, or challenges, offers a handy way to contextualize the variety of ways in which the government is challenged today.

Against the background of the I50 paradigm, this paper queries in what ways blockchain and blockchain-based applications deployed in the smart city context facilitate the integration of the I50 paradigm in smart urban contexts.

A mixed methods approach is applied. First, by means of desk research and thematic literature review, a conceptual model integrating the I50 paradigm, smart city and blockchain-based solutions is built. Second, science mapping bibliometric analysis (SciMat) based on keywords’ co-occurrence is applied to a sample of 491 research articles to identify key domains of blockchain-based applications’ use in smart city. Third, a semi-systematic literature review complements insights gained through SciMat. Fourth, the findings are interpreted through the precepts of the conceptual model devised earlier.

The key blockchain-based applications in smart cities pertain to two domains, i.e. the foundational, service facilitation-oriented domain, including security (and safety), networks, computing, resource management and the service delivery-oriented domain, including mobility, energy and healthcare. Blockchain serves as the key building block for applications developed to deliver functions specific to each of the thus identified domains. A substantial layering of blockchain-based tools and applications is necessary to advance from the less to the more complex functional domains of the smart city.

At the conceptual level, the intricacies of the (making of the) I50 paradigm are discussed and a case for I50 – smart city – blockchain nexus is made. Easton’s input–output model as well as constructivism is referenced. At the empirical level, the key major domains of blockchain-based applications are discussed; those that bear the prospect of integrating the I50 paradigm in the smart city are highlighted. At the methodological level, a strategic move is made aimed at restoring the literature review’s role as subservient to the key line of exploration, to justify and ultimately support it, rather than to showcase the literature review as the ultimate purpose for itself.

The study queries the drivers of innovation management in contemporary data-driven organizations/companies. It is argued that data-driven organizations that integrate a strategic orientation grounded in data, human abilities and proactive management are more effective in triggering innovation.

Research reported in this paper employs constructivist grounded theory, Gioia methodology, and the abductive approach. The data collected through semi-structured interviews administered to 20 Italian start-up founders are then examined.

The paper identifies the key enablers of innovation development in data-driven companies and reveals that data-driven companies may generate different innovation patterns depending on the kind of capabilities activated.

The study provides evidence of how the combination of data-driven culture, skills' enhancement and the promotion of human resources may boost the emergence of innovation.