Smart City Index2021

Smart City
Index 2021
A tool for action, an
instrument for better lives
for all citizens.
A collaboration between:
IMD WORLD SCO

COMPETITIVENESS SMART CITY
30
YE ARS CENTER OBSERVATORY
“What strange phenomena we find in a great city, all we need do is
stroll about with our eyes open.”
Charles Baudelaire, Mademoiselle Bistouri
“Cities, like dreams, are made of desires and fears, even if the thread
of their discourse is secret, their rules are absurd, their perspectives
deceitful, and everything conceals something else.”
Italo Calvino, Invisible Cities

Preface
Welcome to the third edition of the IMD-SUTD Smart City the acceleration of deep processes such as digitization has time series required for urban policies and strategies.
Index Report. Last year, we wrote in the preface to the same changed some perceptions, creating significant differences Fundamentally, the approach has not changed: In line with
report that it was still too early to draw conclusions from between last year’s rankings and this year’s. previous and ongoing efforts initiated and carried out by
the lessons of the pandemic and of its effects on smart IMD’s World Competitiveness Centre, the Smart City Index
cities. This remains true at the time of launching this latest COVID-19 also highlighted how cities could take fresh presented here remains a holistic attempt to capture the
edition (October 2021). The warnings that emerged from responsibilities, and come up with innovative solutions in various dimensions of how citizens could consider that their
last year’s report also remain very much with us a year the face of unprecedented emergencies. New definitions of respective cities are becoming better cities by becoming
later: the health crisis might very well be only a harbinger resilience have been offered – and put in practice – in all smarter ones. Part of the SCI’s uniqueness is to rely first
for other challenges for cities around the world, including types of cities around the world. and foremost on the perceptions of those who live and work
social and economic ones. During the same time, other in the cities covered by the index, while providing a realistic
global challenges (climate change, inequalities) have not In that context, some smart cities have displayed higher recognition that not all cities start from the same level of
abated. In many respects, on the contrary, they have taken capabilities to mobilize and harmonize their services development, nor with the same set of endowments and
an emergency dimension. and resources. While some hopes lead to partial advantages. In SCI’s context, a ‘smart city’ continues to
disappointments (including those put in AI to help accelerate be defined as an urban setting that applies technology to
Such global concerns are bound to have sizeable the production of vaccines and relevant medical solutions enhance the benefits and diminish the shortcomings of
consequences on cities. and equipment), the technologies and analytical tools urbanization for its citizens.
available in smart cities proved important to manage the
One of the most visible aspects of the pandemic has been tracking tools that were so critical in slowing the spread This year’s report includes 118 cities. One important
that of lock-down measures affecting shops, restaurants, of COVID-19. On the other hand, the ubiquitous use of such improvement has been brought to the SCI methodology,
entertainment locations, and work places. City centres tools raised increasing concerns about the limitation of which now relies on a compounded weighted average of
emptied almost overnight, while traffic was reduced to a personal freedoms that they entailed, and the potential scores obtained in 2019, 2020 and 2021. Details are provided
small proportion of its previous levels. Teleworking and misuse of the personal data collected in the process. in the methodology section of the report.
online meetings became the norm, and those who had the
opportunity started to flee large cities and operate from Since the creation of the Smart City Index (SCI), we insisted The SCI report is the result of a close cooperation between
less densely populated areas. It is now becoming clear that on the fact that it is the position of the authors of this report IMD and SUTD (Singapore University for Technology and
a significant part of the new habits created will not fade that smart cities will not generate their full potential unless Design), and benefitted from inputs by numerous experts
away after the pandemic. A new normal has been defined priority attention is devoted to the necessary balance and city specialists around the world, who we want to thank
for cities. between the technological aspects of smart cities and most warmly.
their human aspects. The recent crisis has underlined the
Health-related emergencies have had dire consequences relevance and importance of this mantra. It is our collective hope that this new edition of the SCI
on cities and on their populations. However, they did not index and report will continue to generate the productive
relegate other emergencies (including climate-related On the methodological side, we pursue our efforts to make feedback and discussions that previous editions produced,
issues) to the back burner. As this year’s report data show, the SCI methodology and coverage ever better and more and we look forward to further opportunities to make them
quality of life, safety, mobility and waste management relevant to decision makers and analysts. We also strive to even more valuable in what promises to be an exciting
remained high on the list of citizens’ concerns in all parts of maintain the degree of coherence and continuity that will post-pandemic era for smart cities around the world.
the world. Moreover, the same data seems to indicate that progressively allow the index to generate the longer-term
Professor Arturo Bris Professor Cheong Koon Hean Bruno Lanvin

Director Chair President
IMD World Competitiveness Center Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities IMD Smart City Observatory
Smart City Index 2021 3

Table of contents
Preface..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3
Table of contents..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4
The IMD World Competitiveness Center.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................6
City performance overview...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7
Alphabetical....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7
By ranking.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9
User’s Guide to the Smart City Index.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11
Methodology in a nutshell..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................13
City profiles.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................14
City Profiles
Abu Dhabi............................................................................................................. 15 Budapest............................................................................................................... 36

Abuja..................................................................................................................... 16 Buenos Aires........................................................................................................ 37
Amsterdam........................................................................................................... 17 Busan.................................................................................................................... 38
Ankara................................................................................................................... 18 Cairo...................................................................................................................... 39
Athens................................................................................................................... 19 Cape Town............................................................................................................. 40
Auckland............................................................................................................... 20 Chengdu................................................................................................................ 41
Bangkok................................................................................................................ 21 Chicago................................................................................................................. 42
Barcelona.............................................................................................................. 22 Chongqing............................................................................................................. 43
Beijing................................................................................................................... 23 Copenhagen.......................................................................................................... 44
Bengaluru............................................................................................................. 24 Denver................................................................................................................... 45
Berlin.................................................................................................................... 25 Dubai..................................................................................................................... 46
Bilbao.................................................................................................................... 26 Dublin.................................................................................................................... 47
Birmingham.......................................................................................................... 27 Dusseldorf............................................................................................................ 48
Bogota................................................................................................................... 28 Geneva.................................................................................................................. 49
Bologna................................................................................................................. 29 Glasgow................................................................................................................ 50
Bordeaux............................................................................................................... 30 Gothenburg........................................................................................................... 51
Boston................................................................................................................... 31 Guangzhou............................................................................................................ 52
Bratislava.............................................................................................................. 32 Hamburg............................................................................................................... 53
Brisbane............................................................................................................... 33 Hangzhou.............................................................................................................. 54
Brussels................................................................................................................ 34 Hanoi..................................................................................................................... 55
Bucharest............................................................................................................. 35 Hanover................................................................................................................. 56

Helsinki................................................................................................................. 57 Osaka.................................................................................................................... 95
Ho Chi Minh City................................................................................................... 58 Oslo....................................................................................................................... 96
Hong Kong............................................................................................................ 59 Paris...................................................................................................................... 97
Hyderabad............................................................................................................. 60 Philadelphia.......................................................................................................... 98
Istanbul................................................................................................................. 61 Phoenix................................................................................................................. 99
Jakarta.................................................................................................................. 62 Prague................................................................................................................ 100
Kiel........................................................................................................................ 63 Rabat................................................................................................................... 101
Krakow ................................................................................................................. 64 Rio de Janeiro..................................................................................................... 102
Kuala Lumpur...................................................................................................... 65 Riyadh................................................................................................................. 103
Kyiv....................................................................................................................... 66 Rome................................................................................................................... 104
Lagos.................................................................................................................... 67 Rotterdam........................................................................................................... 105
Lausanne.............................................................................................................. 68 San Francisco..................................................................................................... 106
Leeds.................................................................................................................... 69 San José............................................................................................................. 107
Lille....................................................................................................................... 70 Santiago.............................................................................................................. 108
Lisbon................................................................................................................... 71 Sao Paulo............................................................................................................ 109
London.................................................................................................................. 72 Seattle................................................................................................................. 110
Los Angeles.......................................................................................................... 73 Seoul................................................................................................................... 111
Lyon....................................................................................................................... 74 Shanghai............................................................................................................. 112
Madrid................................................................................................................... 75 Shenzhen............................................................................................................ 113
Makassar.............................................................................................................. 76 Singapore............................................................................................................ 114
Manchester........................................................................................................... 77 Sofia.................................................................................................................... 115
Manila................................................................................................................... 78 St. Petersburg..................................................................................................... 116
Marseille............................................................................................................... 79 Stockholm........................................................................................................... 117
Medan................................................................................................................... 80 Sydney................................................................................................................. 118
Medellin................................................................................................................ 81 Taipei City............................................................................................................ 119
Medina.................................................................................................................. 82 Tallinn................................................................................................................. 120
Melbourne............................................................................................................. 83 Tel Aviv................................................................................................................ 121
Mexico City............................................................................................................ 84 The Hague........................................................................................................... 122
Milan..................................................................................................................... 85 Tianjin................................................................................................................. 123
Montreal................................................................................................................ 86 Tokyo................................................................................................................... 124
Moscow................................................................................................................. 87 Toronto................................................................................................................ 125
Mumbai................................................................................................................. 88 Vancouver........................................................................................................... 126
Munich.................................................................................................................. 89 Vienna................................................................................................................. 127
Nairobi.................................................................................................................. 90 Warsaw............................................................................................................... 128
Nanjing.................................................................................................................. 91 Washington D.C.................................................................................................. 129
New Delhi............................................................................................................. 92 Zaragoza............................................................................................................. 130
New York............................................................................................................... 93 Zhuhai................................................................................................................. 131
Newcastle............................................................................................................. 94 Zurich.................................................................................................................. 132

The IMD World Competitiveness Center
For more than thirty years, the IMD World Competitiveness Center has pioneered research on how countries and companies compete to lay the foundations for sustainable
value creation. The competitiveness of nations is probably one of the most significant developments in modern management and IMD is committed to leading the field.
The IMD World Competitiveness Center team:
Professor Arturo Bris Director

Christos Cabolis Chief Economist & Head of Operations
Bruno Lanvin President, Smart City Observatory
José Caballero Senior Economist
Madeleine Hediger Data Research and Online Services Specialist
Catherine Jobin Order and Sales Administrator
William Milner Research Projects Associate Manager
Marco Pistis Research Specialist
Maryam Zargari Research Specialist

City performance overview
Alphabetical
Smart City Smart City Structure Technology Smart City Smart City Smart City Structure Technology Smart City
City Change City Change
Rank 2021 Rating 2021 2021 2021 Rank 2020 Rank 2021 Rating 2021 2021 2021 Rank 2020
Abu Dhabi 28 BB BB BB 42 ▲ +14 Copenhagen 7 A AA A 6 ▼ -1
Abuja 114 D C D 107 ▼ -7 Denver 45 BB BB B 35 ▼ -10
Amsterdam 17 BBB A A 9 ▼ -8 Dubai 29 BB BB BB 43 ▲ +14
Ankara 55 B B B 57 ▲ +2 Dublin 48 BB BB BBB 34 ▼ -14
Athens 111 C C C 99 ▼ -12 Dusseldorf 20 BBB A BBB 13 ▼ -7
Auckland 9 A A A 4 ▼ -5 Geneva 8 A AA A 7 ▼ -1
Bangkok 76 CCC CC B 71 ▼ -5 Glasgow 49 BB BB BBB NEW ▬
Barcelona 58 B B BB 49 ▼ -9 Gothenburg 46 BB BBB BBB 31 ▼ -15
Beijing 69 CCC CC CCC 82 ▲ +13 Guangzhou 68 CCC CCC CCC 68 ▬
Bengaluru 93 CC CC CC 95 ▲ +2 Hamburg 40 BB A BBB 22 ▼ -18
Berlin 50 BB BBB BB 38 ▼ -12 Hangzhou 66 CCC CCC CCC 65 ▼ -1
Bilbao 10 BBB A BBB 24 ▲ +14 Hanoi 87 CC CC CC 84 ▼ -3
Birmingham 51 BB BB BBB 40 ▼ -11 Hanover 47 BB A BB 33 ▼ -14
Bogota 116 D D D 92 ▼ -24 Helsinki 6 A AA A 2 ▼ -4
Bologna 77 CCC B CCC 70 ▼ -7 Ho Chi Minh City 88 CC CC CC 83 ▼ -5
Bordeaux 32 BB BBB BB NEW ▬ Hong Kong 41 BB BB A 32 ▼ -9
Boston 57 B BBB B 36 ▼ -21 Hyderabad 92 CC CC CC 85 ▼ -7
Bratislava 96 CC CC CC 76 ▼ -20 Istanbul 94 CC CC B NEW ▬
Brisbane 16 BBB A BBB 14 ▼ -2 Jakarta 91 CC CC CC 94 ▲ +3
Brussels 52 BB BB BBB 60 ▲ +8 Kiel 53 BB BBB BB NEW ▬
Bucharest 106 C C CC 87 ▼ -19 Krakow 80 CCC CCC CCC 58 ▼ -22
Budapest 97 CC CC CC 77 ▼ -20 Kuala Lumpur 74 CCC CCC CCC 54 ▼ -20
Buenos Aires 98 CC C CC 88 ▼ -10 Kyiv 82 CCC CC CCC 98 ▲ +16
Busan 37 BB B BBB 46 ▲ +9 Lagos 115 D D D 109 ▼ -6
Cairo 104 C D C 106 ▲ +2 Lausanne 5 A AAA A NEW ▬
Cape Town 105 C C C 103 ▼ -2 Leeds 24 BBB BBB A NEW ▬
Chengdu 72 CCC CC CCC 69 ▼ -3 Lille 44 BB B BB NEW ▬
Chicago 59 B B BB 41 ▼ -18 Lisbon 95 CC CC CCC 75 ▼ -20
Chongqing 67 CCC CCC CCC 64 ▼ -3 London 22 BBB BBB A 15 ▼ -7

Los Angeles 31 BB BB BBB 26 ▼ -5 Riyadh 30 BB B BB 53 ▲ +23
Lyon 39 BB BB BB 51 ▲ +12 Rome 112 C C C 101 ▼ -11
Madrid 34 BB B BBB 45 ▲ +11 Rotterdam 27 BBB BBB BBB 29 ▲ +2
Makassar 100 C CC C 96 ▼ -4 San Francisco 60 B B B 27 ▼ -33
Manchester 26 BBB BBB BBB 17 ▼ -9 San José 109 C C C NEW ▬
Manila 102 C C C 104 ▲ +2 Santiago 110 C C CC 91 ▼ -19
Marseille 83 CCC CCC B 78 ▼ -5 Sao Paulo 117 D D D 100 ▼ -17
Medan 99 C C CC 97 ▼ -2 Seattle 43 BB BB BB 37 ▼ -6
Medellin 101 C C C 72 ▼ -29 Seoul 13 BBB B A 47 ▲ +34
Medina 73 CCC CCC CCC NEW ▬ Shanghai 71 CCC CC CCC 81 ▲ +10
Melbourne 19 BBB BBB A 20 ▲ +1 Shenzhen 65 CCC CCC CCC 67 ▲ +2
Mexico City 108 C C CC 90 ▼ -18 Singapore 1 AAA AAA AAA 1 ▬
Milan 81 CCC CCC CCC 74 ▼ -7 Sofia 107 C C CC 89 ▼ -18
Montreal 38 BB BBB BB 21 ▼ -17 St. Petersburg 79 CCC CCC CCC 73 ▼ -6
Moscow 54 B B B 56 ▲ +2 Stockholm 25 BBB A BBB 16 ▼ -9
Mumbai 90 CC CC CC 93 ▲ +3 Sydney 18 BBB BBB A 18 ▬
Munich 14 BBB AA BBB 11 ▼ -3 Taipei City 4 A A A 8 ▲ +4
Nairobi 113 D D D 108 ▼ -5 Tallinn 56 B B CCC 59 ▲ +3
Nanjing 64 CCC CCC CCC 66 ▲ +2 Tel Aviv 42 BB B BB 50 ▲ +8
New Delhi 89 CC CC CC 86 ▼ -3 The Hague 23 BBB A BBB 28 ▲ +5
New York 12 BBB BB BBB 10 ▼ -2 Tianjin 70 CCC CCC CCC 63 ▼ -7
Newcastle 21 BBB A BBB 23 ▲ +2 Tokyo 84 CCC B CCC 79 ▼ -5
Osaka 86 CCC B CCC 80 ▼ -6 Toronto 36 BB BBB BB 30 ▼ -6
Oslo 3 AA AAA A 5 ▲ +2 Vancouver 33 BB BBB BB 19 ▼ -14
Paris 61 B CCC BB 61 ▬ Vienna 11 BBB A BB 25 ▲ +14
Philadelphia 85 CCC CCC B 52 ▼ -33 Warsaw 75 CCC CCC CCC 55 ▼ -20
Phoenix 62 B BB B 39 ▼ -23 Washington D.C. 35 BB BBB BB 12 ▼ -23
Prague 78 CCC B CCC 44 ▼ -34 Zaragoza 15 BBB A BB 48 ▲ +33
Rabat 103 C C D 105 ▲ +2 Zhuhai 63 CCC CCC CCC 62 ▼ -1
Rio de Janeiro 118 D D D 102 ▼ -16 Zurich 2 AA AAA A 3 ▲ +1

By ranking
1 Singapore AAA AAA AAA 1 ▬ 30 Riyadh BB B BB 53 ▲ +23
2 Zurich AA AAA A 3 ▲ +1 31 Los Angeles BB BB BBB 26 ▼ -5
3 Oslo AA AAA A 5 ▲ +2 32 Bordeaux BB BBB BB NEW ▬
4 Taipei City A A A 8 ▲ +4 33 Vancouver BB BBB BB 19 ▼ -14
5 Lausanne A AAA A NEW ▬ 34 Madrid BB B BBB 45 ▲ +11
6 Helsinki A AA A 2 ▼ -4 35 Washington D.C. BB BBB BB 12 ▼ -23
7 Copenhagen A AA A 6 ▼ -1 36 Toronto BB BBB BB 30 ▼ -6
8 Geneva A AA A 7 ▼ -1 37 Busan BB B BBB 46 ▲ +9
9 Auckland A A A 4 ▼ -5 38 Montreal BB BBB BB 21 ▼ -17
10 Bilbao BBB A BBB 24 ▲ +14 39 Lyon BB BB BB 51 ▲ +12
11 Vienna BBB A BB 25 ▲ +14 40 Hamburg BB A BBB 22 ▼ -18
12 New York BBB BB BBB 10 ▼ -2 41 Hong Kong BB BB A 32 ▼ -9
13 Seoul BBB B A 47 ▲ +34 42 Tel Aviv BB B BB 50 ▲ +8
14 Munich BBB AA BBB 11 ▼ -3 43 Seattle BB BB BB 37 ▼ -6
15 Zaragoza BBB A BB 48 ▲ +33 44 Lille BB B BB NEW ▬
16 Brisbane BBB A BBB 14 ▼ -2 45 Denver BB BB B 35 ▼ -10
17 Amsterdam BBB A A 9 ▼ -8 46 Gothenburg BB BBB BBB 31 ▼ -15
18 Sydney BBB BBB A 18 ▬ 47 Hanover BB A BB 33 ▼ -14
19 Melbourne BBB BBB A 20 ▲ +1 48 Dublin BB BB BBB 34 ▼ -14
20 Dusseldorf BBB A BBB 13 ▼ -7 49 Glasgow BB BB BBB NEW ▬
21 Newcastle BBB A BBB 23 ▲ +2 50 Berlin BB BBB BB 38 ▼ -12
22 London BBB BBB A 15 ▼ -7 51 Birmingham BB BB BBB 40 ▼ -11
23 The Hague BBB A BBB 28 ▲ +5 52 Brussels BB BB BBB 60 ▲ +8
24 Leeds BBB BBB A NEW ▬ 53 Kiel BB BBB BB NEW ▬
25 Stockholm BBB A BBB 16 ▼ -9 54 Moscow B B B 56 ▲ +2
26 Manchester BBB BBB BBB 17 ▼ -9 55 Ankara B B B 57 ▲ +2
27 Rotterdam BBB BBB BBB 29 ▲ +2 56 Tallinn B B CCC 59 ▲ +3
28 Abu Dhabi BB BB BB 42 ▲ +14 57 Boston B BBB B 36 ▼ -21
29 Dubai BB BB BB 43 ▲ +14 58 Barcelona B B BB 49 ▼ -9

59 Chicago B B BB 41 ▼ -18 89 Delhi CC CC CC 86 ▼ -3
60 San Francisco B B B 27 ▼ -33 90 Mumbai CC CC CC 93 ▲ +3
61 Paris B CCC BB 61 ▬ 91 Jakarta CC CC CC 94 ▲ +3
62 Phoenix B BB B 39 ▼ -23 92 Hyderabad CC CC CC 85 ▼ -7
63 Zhuhai CCC CCC CCC 62 ▼ -1 93 Bengaluru CC CC CC 95 ▲ +2
64 Nanjing CCC CCC CCC 66 ▲ +2 94 Istanbul CC CC B NEW ▬
65 Shenzhen CCC CCC CCC 67 ▲ +2 95 Lisbon CC CC CCC 75 ▼ -20
66 Hangzhou CCC CCC CCC 65 ▼ -1 96 Bratislava CC CC CC 76 ▼ -20
67 Chongqing CCC CCC CCC 64 ▼ -3 97 Budapest CC CC CC 77 ▼ -20
68 Guangzhou CCC CCC CCC 68 ▬ 98 Buenos Aires CC C CC 88 ▼ -10
69 Beijing CCC CC CCC 82 ▲ +13 99 Medan C C CC 97 ▼ -2
70 Tianjin CCC CCC CCC 63 ▼ -7 100 Makassar C CC C 96 ▼ -4
71 Shanghai CCC CC CCC 81 ▲ +10 101 Medellin C C C 72 ▼ -29
72 Chengdu CCC CC CCC 69 ▼ -3 102 Manila C C C 104 ▲ +2
73 Medina CCC CCC CCC NEW ▬ 103 Rabat C C D 105 ▲ +2
74 Kuala Lumpur CCC CCC CCC 54 ▼ -20 104 Cairo C D C 106 ▲ +2
75 Warsaw CCC CCC CCC 55 ▼ -20 105 Cape Town C C C 103 ▼ -2
76 Bangkok CCC CC B 71 ▼ -5 106 Bucharest C C CC 87 ▼ -19
77 Bologna CCC B CCC 70 ▼ -7 107 Sofia C C CC 89 ▼ -18
78 Prague CCC B CCC 44 ▼ -34 108 Mexico City C C CC 90 ▼ -18
79 St. Petersburg CCC CCC CCC 73 ▼ -6 109 San José C C C NEW ▬
80 Krakow CCC CCC CCC 58 ▼ -22 110 Santiago C C CC 91 ▼ -19
81 Milan CCC CCC CCC 74 ▼ -7 111 Athens C C C 99 ▼ -12
82 Kyiv CCC CC CCC 98 ▲ +16 112 Rome C C C 101 ▼ -11
83 Marseille CCC CCC B 78 ▼ -5 113 Nairobi D D D 108 ▼ -5
84 Tokyo CCC B CCC 79 ▼ -5 114 Abuja D C D 107 ▼ -7
85 Philadelphia CCC CCC B 52 ▼ -33 115 Lagos D D D 109 ▼ -6
86 Osaka CCC B CCC 80 ▼ -6 116 Bogota D D D 92 ▼ -24
87 Hanoi CC CC CC 84 ▼ -3 117 Sao Paulo D D D 100 ▼ -17
88 Ho Chi Minh City CC CC CC 83 ▼ -5 118 Rio de Janeiro D D D 102 ▼ -16
S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 10
User’s Guide to the Smart City Index
Smart City Ranking Background Information

Abu Dhabi
% of respondents who chose the Priority Area
Abu Dhabi
PRIORITY AREAS % of respondents who chose th
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
PRIORITY AREAS
affordable housing 0% 20% 40% 6
This presents the UN Human
74.3%
Smart City Ranking: The Ranking position From a list of 15 indicators, survey
respondents were asked to select 5 that fulfilling employment 49.2% From a list of 15 indicators, survey affordable housing Development
they perceived as the most urgent for unemployment 46.5% fulfilling employment 49.2%
Index and its four components of the
respondents were asked to select 5 that
SMART ofBACKGROUND
the city INFORMATION
amongst the 118 cities measured, their city. This is the total bar. The higher health services 34.8% they perceived as the most urgent for unemployment 46.5%
SMART BACKGROUND INFORMATION
the percentage of responses per area, road congestion 27.9% their city. This is the total bar. The higher health services 34.8%
CITY based
City upon the Rating and its components. CITY the greater the priority for the city. air pollution 25.7% parent economy of theroadaircity,
the percentage of responses per area,
the greater the priority for the city.
congestion as well as 27.9%
RANKING City green spaces 24.5% pollution 25.7%
Population RANKING
The left hand section of each bar shows
the Alignment - the proportion of those
public transport 24.5% the
The left city’s
hand section of each position
bar shows on the map.
green spaces For Taipei 24.5%
28
respondents who also answered the school education 24.3% public transport 24.5%
Group: City, whothe data is calculated using the same
the Alignment - the proportion of those
1,480,000
Each city is assigned to one of four Population
28
corresponding survey questions low. A recycling 23.1% respondents also answered the school education 24.3%
1,480,000 strong Alignment implies that these areas basic amenities 21.8% recycling 23.1%
corresponding survey questions low. A
strongmethodology
Alignment implies that these areasand comparable data. This
groups, based
(UN World Urbanization upon its HDI values.
Prospects) also demand priority attention.
(UN World Urbanization Prospects)
citizen engagement
security
21.1%
20.7% also demand priority attention.
basic amenities
citizen engagement
21.8%
21.1%
Out of 118
Out of 118 social mobility
corruption 11.8%
16.5%
section also presents the population
security
social mobility
of
20.7%
16.5%
Smart City Rating and Factor Ratings: The the city as defined through the UN World
▲
corruption 11.8%
Ratings for each city are calculated from ▲ ATTITUDES

Urbanization
% of respondents who agree or strongly agree with the statement Prospects for the majority
cities or Eurostat for a number
% of respondents who agree or strongly
42 in 2020 the city’s performance relative to the other Map tiles by Stamen Design CC BY 3.0 Map Data © OpenStreetMap
You are willing to concede personal data in order to improve traffic congestion
0% 20% 40% 60%
of 75.3%
ATTITUDES
80% 100%
0% 20%
of 40% 60
42 in 2020
Map tiles by Stamen Design CC BY 3.0 Map Data © OpenStreetMap
You areEuropean
cities
Countrywithin the group. 2016 89.1% cities.
willing to concede personal data in order to improve traffic congestion
2017 2018 2019 1 yr change You are comfortable with face recognition technologies to lower crime
HDI 0.863 0.864 0.866 0.890 +0.024 Country 2016 2017 2018 2019 1 yr change You are comfortable with face recognition technologies to lower crime
You feel the availability of online information has increased your trust in authorities 89.8%
SMART Life expectancy at Birth 77.5 77.6 77.8 78.0 +0.2 HDI 0.863 0.864 0.866 0.890 +0.024
You feel the availability of online information has increased your trust in authorities
CITY The Methodology

Expected years of schooling section13.6 provides
10.8
13.6
10.9
the13.6exact
11.0
SMART
14.3
12.1
+0.7
+1.1
The
Life expectancy at proportion
Birth of your day-to-day payment
(% of transactions)
Expected years of schooling
77.5transactions that
13.6
77.6are non-cash 77.8
13.6 13.6
78.0
14.3
+0.2
+0.7
70.0%
The proportion of your day-to-day payment transactions that are non-cash
Mean years of schooling
procedure
GNI per capita (PPP $)for these calculations.
CITY (% of transactions)
RATING 67,410 67,136 66,912 67,462 +550 Mean years of schooling
LEGEND: GROUP MEAN CITY
10.8 10.9 11.0 12.1 +1.1
RATING GNI per capita (PPP $) 67,410 67,136 66,912 67,462 +550 LEGEND: GROUP MEAN CITY
BB The 2021 Ranking and Rating are also shown BB LEGEND: MIN CITY MEAN GROUP MAX
for the 109 cities included in last year’s index. LEGEND: MIN CITY MEAN GROUP MAX
Priority Areas
BB in 2020 STRUCTURES TECHNOLOGIES
BB in 2020
Score STRUCTURES Score TECHNOLOGIES
0 20 40 60 80 100 Score0 20 40 60 80 100 Score
Health & Safety Health & Safety
Basic sanitation meets the needs of the poorest areas Health & Safety
85.9 Online reporting of city maintenance problems provides0 a speedy
20 solution 40 60 80 100 Health & Safety
74.5 0 20 40
Recycling services are satisfactory Summarizes the areas that the respondents perceive as the 85.9
Basic sanitation
84.4meets the needs
A of the poorest
website or Appareas
allows residents to easily give away unwanted items priorityOnline
area reporting
74.6for their city. From a list of 15
of city maintenance problems provides a speedy solution
FACTOR Public safety is not a problem Recycling services
74.5 are satisfactory
Free public wifi has improved access to city services 84.4 A website or 71.7
App allows residents to easily give away unwanted items
RATINGS Air pollution is not a problem FACTOR indicators, is notsurvey

Public safety 60.8 a problem CCTV respondents
cameras has made residentswere feel safer asked to select 5 that they perceived
74.5 Freeas
public the
wifi
85.7 most
has improved urgent
access to city servicesfor their city. The
RATINGS Air pollution is88.1

totalMedical
bar
not a problem A website or App allows residents to effectively monitor air pollution
indicates the percentage of the respondents that included
60.8 CCTV cameras
a given
has made residents feel safer
A website orarea as one of monitor
their fi ve choices.
Medical services provision is satisfactory 58.4
Finding housing with rent equal to 30% or less of a monthly salary is not a problem services
51.0provision is satisfactory
Arranging medical appointments online has improved access 88.1 App allows residents
85.3 to effectively air pollution
BB The higher the percentage of responses per area, the greater the priority for the city. The left-hand section of
Finding housing with rent equal to 30% or less of a monthly salary is not a problem 51.0 Arranging medical appointments online has improved access
STRUCTURES
Mobility
Traffic congestion is not a problem
Public transport is satisfactory
BB eachMobility
bar 66.4 shows the
Traffic congestion
Mobility
Alignment
Car-sharing
81.9 is not a problem
- the proportion of those respondents who
Apps have reduced congestion
66.4
Mobilityalso 63.9
Car-sharing Apps
answered the corresponding
69.9 have reduced congestion
survey questions
Apps that direct you to an available parking space have reduced journey time
STRUCTURES Public transport low.
is satisfactory Bicycle hiring A strong
has reduced Alignment implies that these areas
congestion 81.9 alsoApps
demand
that direct
65.7 priority
you to an available parking attention.
space have reduced journey time
Online scheduling and ticket sales has made public transport easier to use Bicycle hiring82.4
has reduced congestion
BB The city provides information on traffic congestion through mobile phones Online scheduling
78.5 and ticket sales has made public transport easier to use
Abu Dhabi
TECHNOLOGIES
Activities
Green spaces are satisfactory
BB Activities 80.8
Activities
PRIORITY AREAS
Online purchasing of tickets to shows and museums has made it easier to attend 0% 20% 40%
The city provides information on traffic congestion through mobile phones
Activities
60% 87.5 80% 100%
Cultural activities (shows, bars, and museums) are satisfactory TECHNOLOGIES Green spaces84.3
are satisfactory affordable housing
80.8 Online purchasing of tickets to shows and museums has made it easier to attend
74.3%
From a list of 15 indicators, survey
Cultural activities (shows, bars, and museums) are satisfactory fulfilling employment 84.3 49.2%
respondents were asked to select 5 that
Opportunities (Work & School) they perceived(Work
Opportunities as the&most urgent for
School) unemployment 46.5%
SMART BACKGROUND
Employment INFORMATION
finding services are readily available Opportunities
66.6 (Work & School) their access
Online city. This is the
to job totalhas
listings bar. The ithigher
made easier to find work health services 34.8% Opportunities
76.3 (Work & School)
GROUP Employment 77.9 the percentage
finding services areITreadily available of responses per area, road congestion 27.9%
66.6 Online access to job listings has made it easier to find work
CITY Most children have access to a good school
City opportunities are provided by local institutions
Lifelong learning
GROUP Most children70.1
skills are
have access to a good
taught well in schools
the greater the priority for the city.
Onlineschool
services provided by the city has made it easier to start a new business
air pollution 25.7%
77.9
76.7
IT skills are taught
75.1 well in schools
3
RANKING Businesses are creating new jobs Lifelong learning
67.5 opportunities are provided
The left by
hand local institutions
section of each bar shows
The current internet speed and reliability meet connectivity needs
green spaces 24.5%
70.1 Online services provided by the city has made it easier to start a new business
83.4
3
public transport 24.5%
MinoritiesPopulation
feel welcome Businesses are80.1creating new jobs the Alignment - the proportion of those 67.5 The current internet speed and reliability meet connectivity needs
28
respondents who also answered the school education 24.3%
1,480,000 Minorities feel welcome 80.1
corresponding survey questions low. A recycling 23.1%
Governance Governance
strong Alignment implies that these areas basic amenities 21.8%
Information
(UNonWorld
local government decisions
Urbanization are easily accessible
Prospects) Governance 82.3 also public
Online demand priority
access attention.
to city finances has reduced corruption citizen engagement 21.1% Governance 68.2
Corruption of city officials is not an issue of concern Information on local governmentOnline
69.7 decisions arehas
voting easily accessible
increased participation security 20.7%82.3 Online public65.6
access to city finances has reduced corruption
Out of 118
Corruption of60.5
city officials is not An
an issue
onlineofplatform
concernwhere residents can propose ideas has improved city life social mobility 16.5% 69.7 Online voting71.3
has increased participation
All ratings range Residents contribute to decision making of local government
All ratings range Residents contribute to decision making of local government corruption 11.8% 60.5 An online platform
from AAA to D Residents provide feedback on local government projects 69.8 Processing Identification Documents online has reduced waiting times 82.8 where residents can propose ideas has improved city life
▲
from AAA to D Residents provide feedback on local government projects 69.8 Processing Identification Documents online has reduced waiting times
% of respondents who agree or strongly agree with the statement

ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
42 in 2020 Map tiles by Stamen Design CC BY 3.0 Map Data © OpenStreetMap
You are willing to concede personal data in order to improve traffic congestion 75.3% S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 11
Country 2016 2017 2018 2019 1 yr change You are comfortable with face recognition technologies to lower crime 89.1%
SMART BACKGROUND INFORMATION their city. This is the total bar. The higher health services 34.8%
the percentage of responses per area, road congestion 27.9%
CITY City
the greater the priority for the city. air pollution 25.7%
RANKING The left hand section of each bar shows

green spaces
public transport
24.5%
24.5%
Population the Alignment - the proportion of those
28
Attitudes
1,480,000 recycling 23.1%
(UN World Urbanization Prospects) also demand priority attention. citizen engagement 21.1%
Abu Dhabi security 20.7% % of respondents who chose the Priority Area
Out of 118
Attitudes: Shows and compares the responses to three key PRIORITY AREAS
social mobility 16.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
corruption 11.8%
privacy aspects (willingness to concede personal data, comfort From a list of 15 indicators, survey affordable housing 74.3%
▲
respondents were asked to select 5 that fulfilling employment 49.2%
vis-à-vis face recognition, andSMART whether online information

BACKGROUND INFORMATION has they perceived as the most urgent for
their city. This is the total bar. The higher
unemployment
health services 34.8%
46.5%
the percentage of responses per area, % of respondents who agree or strongly agree 27.9%
with the statement
increased trust in authorities) CITY and the percentage of day-to-
road congestion
City
ATTITUDES the greater the priority for the city. air pollution 25.7%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
42 in 2020 RANKING The city is represented
green spaces
day transactions that are non-cash.
24.5%
The left hand section of each bar shows
You are willing to concede personal data in order to improve traffic congestion public transport 24.5% 75.3%
28
school education 24.3%
by the blue bar, while the group average
Country 2016is 1,480,000
shown 2017 by the 2018 light 2019 1 yr change
respondents who also answered the
You are comfortable with face recognition technologies to lower crime
corresponding survey questions low. A recycling 23.1% 89.1%
HDI 0.863 0.864 0.866 0.890 +0.024 strong Alignment implies that these areas basic amenities 21.8%
red
SMART
bar. Life expectancy at Birth 77.5 (UN World77.6
Urbanization Prospects)
77.8 78.0 +0.2
You feel the availability of online information has
also increased yourattention.
demand priority trust in authorities citizen engagement 21.1%
89.8%
security 20.7%
Out of 118 13.6 13.6 13.6 14.3 +0.7 The proportion of your day-to-day payment transactions that are non-cash 70.0%
Expected years of schooling social mobility 16.5%
CITY Mean years of schooling 10.8 10.9 11.0 12.1 +1.1
(% of transactions)
corruption 11.8%
RATING
▲
GNI per capita (PPP $) 67,410 67,136 66,912 67,462 +550 LEGEND: GROUP MEAN CITY
BB
ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
42 in 2020 Map tiles by Stamen Design CC BY 3.0 Map Data © OpenStreetMap
You are willing to concede personal data in order to improve traffic congestion 75.3%
LEGEND: MIN CITY MEAN GROUP MAX
HDI 0.863 0.864 0.866 0.890 +0.024
StructuresHealth
and Technologies
Score You feel the availability of online information has increased your trust in authorities Score 89.8%
& Safety
SMART Life expectancy at Birth
0 20 40
77.5
60
77.6
80
77.8
100
78.0
Health+0.7
+0.2
& Safety 0
The proportion of your day-to-day payment transactions that are non-cash 20 40 60 80 100 70.0%
Expected years of schooling 13.6 13.6 13.6 14.3
CITY
Basic sanitation meets the needs of the poorest areas Mean years of schooling 10.8 10.9 11.0 85.9 12.1 Online reporting
+1.1
(% of transactions)
of city maintenance problems provides a speedy solution 74.5
Key sur vey data collected RATING

Recycling services are satisfactory GNI per capita (PPP $) 67,410 67,136 66,912 84.4 67,462 A website
+550or App allows residents
LEGEND:to easily
GROUPgive away unwanted
MEAN CITY items 74.6
FACTOR Public safety is not a problem 74.5 Free public wifi has improved access to city services 71.7
on Str
RATINGS uctures (lef
Air pollution
BB
is nott a problem
Technologies (right side), under

side) and
Medical services provision is satisfactory
60.8
88.1
CCTV cameras has made residents feel safer
A website or App allows residents to effectively monitor air pollution
LEGEND: MIN CITY MEAN GROUP MAX
85.7
58.4
Finding housing with rent equal to 30% or less of a monthly salary is not a problem 51.0 Arranging medical appointments online has improved access 85.3
BB
fi ve key areas: health and safety, BB in 2020 STRUCTURES TECHNOLOGIES
Score Score
mobility, activities,
Mobility
opportunities,
Traffic congestion is not a problem
Health & Safety
Basic sanitation meets the needs of the poorest areas
0 20
66.4
40 Mobility80
60 100
Car-sharing Apps have reduced
85.9 congestion
Health & Safety
Online reporting of city maintenance problems provides a speedy solution
0 20 40 60
63.9
80 100
74.5
and governance.
STRUCTURES Public transport is satisfactory Recycling services are satisfactory 81.9 Apps that direct you to an 84.4
available parkingA space
websitehave reduced
or App journey to
allows residents time
easily give away unwanted items 69.9 74.6
FACTOR Public safety is not a problem Bicycle hiring has reduced74.5
congestion Free public wifi has improved access to city services 65.7 71.7
RATINGS Air pollution is not a problem 60.8 CCTV cameras has made residents feel safer
Online scheduling and ticket sales has made public transport easier to use 82.4
85.7
BB
Each indicator presents the Score Medical services provision is satisfactory 88.1 A website or App allows residents to effectively monitor air pollution 58.4
The city provides information on traffic congestion through mobile phones 78.5
for the cit y Activities

and a comparison
with its GroupGreen
TECHNOLOGIES (1-4).
spaces are Showing
satisfactory the
BB Mobility
Traffic congestion is not a problem 80.8
Activities
Online purchasing of tickets to shows and Car-sharing
66.4 museums has
Mobility
Appsmade it easiercongestion
have reduced to attend 87.5 63.9
Mean,STRUCTURES
84.3
Group’s Minimum,
Cultural activities (shows, bars, and
and
museums) are satisfactoryPublic transport is satisfactory 81.9 Apps that direct you to an available parking space have reduced journey time 69.9
Bicycle hiring has reduced congestion 65.7
Maximum ScoresOpportunities(light (Workred bar)

& School) Opportunities (Work & School) Online scheduling and ticket sales has made public transport easier to use 82.4
BB The city provides information on traffic congestion through mobile phones 78.5
Employment finding services are readily available 66.6 Online access to job listings has made it easier to find work 76.3
alongside withMost
GROUP the city (blue circle)
children have access to a good school 77.9 IT skills are taught well in schools 76.7
Activities Activities
allows a clearLifelong
comparison ofprovided
theby local institutionsGreen spaces are satisfactory
learning opportunities TECHNOLOGIES
are 70.1 Online services provided by the city has made
80.8 it easier
Online to start
purchasing a new
of tickets to business
shows and museums has made it easier to attend
75.1 87.5
3 Businesses are creating new jobs 67.5 The current internet speed84.3
and reliability meet connectivity needs 83.4
city’s performance in this indicator.
Minorities feel welcome
Cultural activities (shows, bars, and museums) are satisfactory
80.1
The Methodology section provides Opportunities (Work & School)

Employment finding services are readily available 66.6
Opportunities (Work & School)
Online access to job listings has made it easier to find work 76.3
Governance GROUP Governance
the exact calculation of the Score.
Information on local government decisions are easily accessible
Most children have access to a good school
82.3
77.9 IT skills are taught well in schools
Online public access to city finances has reduced corruption 68.2
76.7
Lifelong learning opportunities are provided by local institutions 70.1 Online services provided by the city has made it easier to start a new business 75.1
3
Corruption of city officials is not an issue of concern 69.7 Online voting has increased participation 65.6
Businesses are creating new jobs 67.5 The current internet speed and reliability meet connectivity needs 83.4
All ratings range Residents contribute to decision making of local government Minorities feel welcome 60.5 An online platform where residents can propose ideas has improved city life 71.3
This table canResidents
from AAA to D be read in two ways:
provide feedback on local government projects 69.8
80.1
Processing Identification Documents online has reduced waiting times 82.8
down to examine all Structures or Governance Governance

Information on local government decisions are easily accessible 82.3 Online public access to city finances has reduced corruption 68.2
Technologies indicators, or across Corruption of city officials is not an issue of concern 69.7 Online voting has increased participation 65.6
to examine a key area inAllfrom both

ratings range
AAA to D
Residents contribute to decision making of local government
Residents provide feedback on local government projects
60.5
69.8
An online platform where residents can propose ideas has improved city life
Processing Identification Documents online has reduced waiting times
71.3
82.8
Structures and Technologies.
S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 12
Methodology in a nutshell
1. The IMD-SUTD Smart City Index (SCI) assesses the perceptions of residents on issues related to structures and technology applications available to them in their city.
2. This edition of the SCI ranks 118 cities worldwide by capturing the perceptions of 120 residents in each city. The final score for each city is computed by using the perceptions of
the last three years of the survey, with the weight of 3:2:1 for 2021:2020:2019.
3. There are two pillars for which perceptions from residents are solicited: The Structures pillar referring to the existing infrastructure of the cities, and the Technology pillar
describing the technological provisions and services available to the inhabitants.
4. Each pillar is evaluated over five key areas: health and safety, mobility, activities, opportunities, and governance.
5. The cities are distributed into four groups based on the UN Human Development Index (HDI) score of the economy they are part of.
6. Within each HDI group, cities are assigned a ‘rating scale’ (AAA to D) based on the perceptions-score of a given city compared to the scores of all other cities within the same
group.
For group 1 (highest HDI quartile), scale AAA–AA–A–BBB– BB

For group 2 (second HDI quartile), scale A–BBB– BB–B– CCC
For group 3 (third HDI quartile), scale BB–B– CCC–CC–C
For group 4 (lowest HDI quartile), scale CCC–CC–C–D
7. Rankings are then presented in two formats:

• an overall ranking (1 to 118)
• a rating for each pillar and overall
S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 13
CITY PROFILES
Abu Dhabi
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
From a list of 15 indicators, survey affordable housing 74.3%

they perceived as the most urgent for unemployment 46.5%
CITY City

green spaces
public transport
24.5%
24.5%
28
1,480,000 recycling 23.1%
security 20.7%
Out of 118
social mobility 16.5%
corruption 11.8%
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
42 in 2020
HDI 0.863 0.864 0.866 0.890 +0.024
SMART Life expectancy at Birth 77.5 77.6 77.8 78.0 +0.2
The proportion of your day-to-day payment transactions that are non-cash 70.0%
Expected years of schooling 13.6 13.6 13.6 14.3 +0.7
(% of transactions)
BB LEGEND: MIN CITY MEAN GROUP MAX

Score Score
Health & Safety 0 20 40 60 80 100 Health & Safety 0 20 40 60 80 100
Basic sanitation meets the needs of the poorest areas 85.9 Online reporting of city maintenance problems provides a speedy solution 74.5
Recycling services are satisfactory 84.4 A website or App allows residents to easily give away unwanted items 74.6
RATINGS Air pollution is not a problem 60.8 CCTV cameras has made residents feel safer 85.7
Medical services provision is satisfactory 88.1 A website or App allows residents to effectively monitor air pollution 58.4
BB Mobility
Mobility
Car-sharing Apps have reduced congestion 63.9
STRUCTURES Public transport is satisfactory 81.9 Apps that direct you to an available parking space have reduced journey time 69.9
TECHNOLOGIES Green spaces are satisfactory 80.8 Online purchasing of tickets to shows and museums has made it easier to attend 87.5
Cultural activities (shows, bars, and museums) are satisfactory 84.3
Opportunities (Work & School) Opportunities (Work & School)

GROUP Most children have access to a good school 77.9 IT skills are taught well in schools 76.7
3 Businesses are creating new jobs 67.5 The current internet speed and reliability meet connectivity needs 83.4
Minorities feel welcome 80.1
All ratings range Residents contribute to decision making of local government 60.5 An online platform where residents can propose ideas has improved city life 71.3
from AAA to D Residents provide feedback on local government projects 69.8 Processing Identification Documents online has reduced waiting times 82.8
S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 15
Abuja
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

respondents were asked to select 5 that security 71.0%
SMART BACKGROUND INFORMATION their city. This is the total bar. The higher corruption 59.5%
the percentage of responses per area, health services 55.0%
CITY City
the greater the priority for the city. basic amenities 42.0%

fulfilling employment
32.9%
114
respondents who also answered the road congestion 20.9%
3,280,000 citizen engagement 14.8%
strong Alignment implies that these areas recycling 13.6%
(UN World Urbanization Prospects) also demand priority attention. public transport 13.3%
Out of 118
air pollution 6.8%
green spaces 3.1%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
107 in 2020
HDI 0.528 0.533 0.534 0.539 +0.005
(% of transactions)
RATING GNI per capita (PPP $) 5,336 5,203 5,086 4,910 -176 LEGEND: GROUP MEAN CITY
D LEGEND: MIN CITY MEAN GROUP MAX
D in 2020 STRUCTURES TECHNOLOGIES

Score Score
C Mobility
Mobility
D The city provides information on traffic congestion through mobile phones 33.7

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 16
Amsterdam
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

they perceived as the most urgent for air pollution 42.5%
the percentage of responses per area, basic amenities 29.6%
CITY City
the greater the priority for the city. green spaces 27.8%

public transport
recycling
27.0%
26.8%
17
1,000,000 school education 25.4%
strong Alignment implies that these areas unemployment 23.9%
(Eurostat) also demand priority attention. fulfilling employment 21.4%
Out of 118
citizen engagement 17.9%
corruption 12.3%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
9 in 2020
HDI 0.929 0.932 0.934 0.944 +0.010
(% of transactions)
RATING GNI per capita (PPP $) 47,008 48,994 50,013 57,707 +7,694 LEGEND: GROUP MEAN CITY
BBB LEGEND: MIN CITY MEAN GROUP MAX
A in 2020 STRUCTURES TECHNOLOGIES

Score Score
A Mobility
Mobility
A The city provides information on traffic congestion through mobile phones 51.9

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 17
Ankara
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
From a list of 15 indicators, survey unemployment 54.0%

respondents were asked to select 5 that affordable housing 52.8%
they perceived as the most urgent for green spaces 41.2%
SMART BACKGROUND INFORMATION their city. This is the total bar. The higher road congestion 39.8%
the percentage of responses per area, fulfilling employment 38.0%
CITY City
the greater the priority for the city. corruption 33.6%

air pollution
recycling
33.0%
28.8%
55
respondents who also answered the security 27.8%
5,120,000 basic amenities 26.8%
strong Alignment implies that these areas public transport 23.5%
(UN World Urbanization Prospects) also demand priority attention. school education 22.7%
Out of 118
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
57 in 2020
HDI 0.800 0.805 0.807 0.820 +0.013
(% of transactions)
B LEGEND: MIN CITY MEAN GROUP MAX
B in 2020 STRUCTURES TECHNOLOGIES

Score Score
B Mobility
Mobility
B The city provides information on traffic congestion through mobile phones 79.4

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 18
Athens
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
From a list of 15 indicators, survey security 58.5%

respondents were asked to select 5 that unemployment 53.2%
they perceived as the most urgent for health services 46.2%
the percentage of responses per area, corruption 40.0%
CITY City

affordable housing
31.5%
31.2%
111
respondents who also answered the air pollution 28.7%
3,150,000 recycling 28.1%
(UN World Urbanization Prospects) also demand priority attention. basic amenities 23.0%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
99 in 2020
HDI 0.866 0.871 0.872 0.888 +0.016
(% of transactions)
C LEGEND: MIN CITY MEAN GROUP MAX
C in 2020 STRUCTURES TECHNOLOGIES

Score Score
C Mobility
Mobility
C The city provides information on traffic congestion through mobile phones 54.0

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 19
Auckland
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

respondents were asked to select 5 that road congestion 65.2%
they perceived as the most urgent for public transport 39.8%
SMART BACKGROUND INFORMATION their city. This is the total bar. The higher unemployment 37.4%
CITY City
the greater the priority for the city. security 33.3%

recycling
27.7%
24.1%
9
strong Alignment implies that these areas air pollution 21.9%
(UN World Urbanization Prospects) also demand priority attention. green spaces 13.6%
corruption 11.6%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
4 in 2020
HDI 0.917 0.920 0.921 0.931 +0.010
(% of transactions)
A LEGEND: MIN CITY MEAN GROUP MAX
AA in 2020 STRUCTURES TECHNOLOGIES

Score Score
A Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 20
Bangkok
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
From a list of 15 indicators, survey air pollution 63.7%

respondents were asked to select 5 that corruption 56.7%
they perceived as the most urgent for security 52.6%
CITY City

public transport
unemployment
32.1%
29.9%
76
respondents who also answered the fulfilling employment 24.9%
10,540,000 affordable housing 24.1%
strong Alignment implies that these areas green spaces 23.2%
(UN World Urbanization Prospects) also demand priority attention. social mobility 20.7%
Out of 118
recycling 8.5%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
71 in 2020
HDI 0.753 0.762 0.765 0.777 +0.012
(% of transactions)
CCC LEGEND: MIN CITY MEAN GROUP MAX
CCC in 2020 STRUCTURES TECHNOLOGIES

Score Score
CC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 21
Barcelona
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

SMART BACKGROUND INFORMATION their city. This is the total bar. The higher air pollution 44.7%
the percentage of responses per area, unemployment 39.4%
CITY City
the greater the priority for the city. health services 33.0%

corruption
road congestion
27.6%
23.8%
58
1,640,000 public transport 17.9%
(Eurostat) also demand priority attention. recycling 16.6%
green spaces 16.6%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
49 in 2020
HDI 0.888 0.891 0.893 0.904 +0.011
Expected years of schooling 17.8 17.9 17.9 17.6 -0.3
(% of transactions)

Score Score
B Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 22
Beijing
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

they perceived as the most urgent for affordable housing 55.4%
SMART BACKGROUND INFORMATION their city. This is the total bar. The higher fulfilling employment 32.0%
CITY City

corruption
social mobility
26.7%
26.1%
69
respondents who also answered the public transport 26.0%
20,460,000 security 21.4%
strong Alignment implies that these areas school education 20.8%
recycling 15.7%
Out of 118
unemployment 13.0%
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
82 in 2020
HDI 0.749 0.753 0.758 0.761 +0.003
(% of transactions)
CC in 2020 STRUCTURES TECHNOLOGIES

Score Score
CC Mobility
Mobility
CCC The city provides information on traffic congestion through mobile phones 86.2

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 23
Bengaluru
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

they perceived as the most urgent for basic amenities 54.1%
the percentage of responses per area, affordable housing 35.8%
CITY City

health services
32.3%
32.3%
93
12,330,000 recycling 28.2%
strong Alignment implies that these areas unemployment 27.9%
Out of 118
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
95 in 2020
HDI 0.637 0.643 0.647 0.645 -0.002
(% of transactions)
CC LEGEND: MIN CITY MEAN GROUP MAX

Score Score
CC Mobility
Mobility
CC The city provides information on traffic congestion through mobile phones 68.3

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 24
Berlin
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

they perceived as the most urgent for road congestion 41.8%
the percentage of responses per area, air pollution 37.7%
CITY City
the greater the priority for the city. school education 34.4%

public transport
basic amenities
25.2%
24.4%
50
respondents who also answered the recycling 22.0%
3,670,000 health services 21.8%
(Eurostat) also demand priority attention. citizen engagement 18.9%
fulfilling employment 17.4%
Out of 118
corruption 12.1%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
38 in 2020
HDI 0.936 0.938 0.939 0.947 +0.008
(% of transactions)
BBB in 2020 STRUCTURES TECHNOLOGIES

Score Score
BBB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 25
Bilbao
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
From a list of 15 indicators, survey fulfilling employment 72.5%

SMART BACKGROUND INFORMATION their city. This is the total bar. The higher security 43.3%
CITY City
the greater the priority for the city. citizen engagement 27.7%

school education
social mobility
20.1%
19.8%
10
350,000 recycling 19.7%
(Eurostat) also demand priority attention. corruption 19.5%
road congestion 17.8%
Out of 118
basic amenities 10.0%
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
24 in 2020
HDI 0.888 0.891 0.893 0.904 +0.011
(% of transactions)

Score Score
A Mobility
Mobility
BBB The city provides information on traffic congestion through mobile phones 60.1

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 26
Birmingham
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

school education
31.8%
28.7%
51
1,140,000 green spaces 24.3%
(Eurostat) also demand priority attention. basic amenities 15.1%
Out of 118
corruption 11.3%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
40 in 2020
HDI 0.918 0.919 0.920 0.932 +0.012
(% of transactions)

Score Score
BB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 27
Bogota
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

respondents were asked to select 5 that health services 54.4%
they perceived as the most urgent for corruption 53.1%
CITY City
the greater the priority for the city. public transport 39.4%

affordable housing 29.9%
37.3%
116
respondents who also answered the basic amenities 26.8%
10,980,000 road congestion 22.8%
recycling 16.6%
Out of 118
green spaces 10.1%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
92 in 2020
HDI 0.759 0.760 0.761 0.767 +0.006
(% of transactions)

Score Score
D Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 28
Bologna
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City
the greater the priority for the city. fulfilling employment 40.7%

recycling
corruption
25.1%
25.0%
77
400,000 social mobility 22.5%
strong Alignment implies that these areas citizen engagement 20.3%
green spaces 14.0%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
70 in 2020
HDI 0.878 0.881 0.883 0.892 +0.009
(% of transactions)

Score Score
B Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 29
Bordeaux
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

recycling
public transport
21.5%
20.7%
32
650,000 corruption 17.4%
strong Alignment implies that these areas health services 16.5%
(Eurostat) also demand priority attention. social mobility 14.9%
Out of 118
green spaces 12.4%
N/A ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
not in 2020
HDI 0.887 0.890 0.891 0.901 +0.010
(% of transactions)
not in 2020 STRUCTURES TECHNOLOGIES

Score Score
BBB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 30
Boston
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

they perceived as the most urgent for public transport 42.9%
the percentage of responses per area, school education 33.8%
CITY City
the greater the priority for the city. unemployment 30.9%

health services
28.7%
27.8%
57
4,310,000 corruption 23.7%
Out of 118
green spaces 14.8%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
36 in 2020
HDI 0.919 0.919 0.920 0.926 +0.006
(% of transactions)

Score Score
BBB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 31
Bratislava
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

SMART BACKGROUND INFORMATION their city. This is the total bar. The higher green spaces 43.2%
CITY City

air pollution
recycling
33.2%
30.7%
96
440,000 fulfilling employment 19.7%
(Eurostat) also demand priority attention. unemployment 15.5%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
76 in 2020
HDI 0.851 0.854 0.857 0.860 +0.003
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 32
Brisbane
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

the percentage of responses per area, public transport 33.8%
CITY City

security
corruption
29.2%
23.9%
16
air pollution 17.1%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
14 in 2020
HDI 0.935 0.937 0.938 0.944 +0.006
(% of transactions)

Score Score
A Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 33
Brussels
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

respondents were asked to select 5 that air pollution 47.8%
CITY City

recycling
25.8%
24.2%
52
respondents who also answered the corruption 23.1%
1,220,000 green spaces 23.0%
(Eurostat) also demand priority attention. school education 22.3%
Out of 118
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
60 in 2020
HDI 0.915 0.917 0.919 0.931 +0.012
(% of transactions)

Score Score
BB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 34
Bucharest
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City
the greater the priority for the city. recycling 33.0%

green spaces
security
29.9%
28.0%
106
2,130,000 fulfilling employment 27.2%
(Eurostat) also demand priority attention. affordable housing 17.9%
Out of 118
unemployment 11.3%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
87 in 2020
HDI 0.808 0.813 0.816 0.828 +0.012
(% of transactions)

Score Score
C Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 35
Budapest
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

road congestion
green spaces 30.7%
36.6%
97
respondents who also answered the unemployment 30.0%
recycling 12.0%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
77 in 2020
HDI 0.838 0.841 0.845 0.854 +0.009
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 36
Buenos Aires
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

school education
basic amenities
36.0%
29.9%
98
15,150,000 air pollution 18.5%
Out of 118
green spaces 10.3%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
88 in 2020
HDI 0.828 0.832 0.830 0.845 +0.015
(% of transactions)

Score Score
C Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 37
Busan
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

SMART BACKGROUND INFORMATION their city. This is the total bar. The higher affordable housing 44.0%
CITY City

basic amenities
security 23.6%
33.9%
37
respondents who also answered the green spaces 21.3%
(UN World Urbanization Prospects) also demand priority attention. recycling 17.7%
Out of 118
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
46 in 2020
HDI 0.901 0.904 0.906 0.916 +0.010
(% of transactions)

Score Score
B Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 38
Cairo
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
From a list of 15 indicators, survey health services 50.6%

CITY City

basic amenities
40.5%
104
(UN World Urbanization Prospects) also demand priority attention. security 20.6%
recycling 17.8%
Out of 118
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
106 in 2020
HDI 0.695 0.696 0.700 0.707 +0.007
(% of transactions)

Score Score
D Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 39
Cape Town
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

SMART BACKGROUND INFORMATION their city. This is the total bar. The higher basic amenities 49.3%
CITY City

41.5%
105
Out of 118
green spaces 6.5%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
103 in 2020
HDI 0.702 0.704 0.705 0.709 +0.004
(% of transactions)

Score Score
C Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 40
Chengdu
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
From a list of 15 indicators, survey road congestion 58.3%

CITY City

health services
school education
31.0%
26.9%
72
9,140,000 social mobility 20.0%
strong Alignment implies that these areas security 19.6%
(UN World Urbanization Prospects) also demand priority attention. unemployment 19.2%
Out of 118
green spaces 15.0%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
69 in 2020
HDI 0.749 0.753 0.758 0.761 +0.003
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 41
Chicago
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

SMART BACKGROUND INFORMATION their city. This is the total bar. The higher school education 40.0%
CITY City

road congestion
35.3%
33.9%
59
8,870,000 recycling 19.4%
green spaces 13.8%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
41 in 2020
HDI 0.919 0.919 0.920 0.926 +0.006
(% of transactions)

Score Score
B Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 42
Chongqing
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City
the greater the priority for the city. social mobility 29.8%

security
corruption
28.8%
28.4%
67
green spaces 18.9%
Out of 118
unemployment 17.9%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
64 in 2020
HDI 0.749 0.753 0.758 0.761 +0.003
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CCC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 43
Copenhagen
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

the percentage of responses per area, green spaces 32.3%
CITY City

security
31.5%
7
Out of 118
corruption 15.6%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
6 in 2020
HDI 0.928 0.929 0.930 0.940 +0.010
(% of transactions)

Score Score
AA Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 44
Denver
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

security
29.8%
26.4%
45
2,830,000 recycling 21.2%
strong Alignment implies that these areas corruption 20.7%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
35 in 2020
HDI 0.919 0.919 0.920 0.926 +0.006
(% of transactions)

Score Score
BB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 45
Dubai
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

health services
recycling
26.2%
25.4%
29
respondents who also answered the citizen engagement 22.0%
Out of 118
corruption 9.8%
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
43 in 2020
HDI 0.863 0.864 0.866 0.890 +0.024
(% of transactions)

Score Score
BB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 46
Dublin
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

SMART BACKGROUND INFORMATION their city. This is the total bar. The higher public transport 39.0%
the percentage of responses per area, security 38.2%
CITY City

recycling
30.6%
26.1%
48
1,230,000 corruption 21.2%
green spaces 13.8%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
34 in 2020
HDI 0.936 0.939 0.942 0.955 +0.013
(% of transactions)

Score Score
BB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 47
Dusseldorf
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

basic amenities
recycling
24.5%
23.7%
20
630,000 school education 19.5%
strong Alignment implies that these areas fulfilling employment 19.3%
Out of 118
corruption 14.2%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
13 in 2020
HDI 0.936 0.938 0.939 0.947 +0.008
(% of transactions)

Score Score
A Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 48
Geneva
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

corruption
recycling
24.0%
22.6%
8
200,000 health services 18.5%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
7 in 2020
HDI 0.943 0.943 0.946 0.955 +0.009
(% of transactions)

Score Score
AA Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 49
Glasgow
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

SMART BACKGROUND INFORMATION their city. This is the total bar. The higher recycling 35.8%
CITY City

public transport
school education
30.1%
29.3%
49
respondents who also answered the social mobility 26.0%
620,000 security 23.6%
(Eurostat) also demand priority attention. air pollution 18.7%
Out of 118
corruption 13.0%
N/A ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
not in 2020
HDI 0.918 0.919 0.920 0.932 +0.012
(% of transactions)

Score Score
BB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 50
Gothenburg
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

road congestion
28.0%
46
560,000 recycling 20.1%
corruption 16.6%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
31 in 2020
HDI 0.934 0.935 0.937 0.945 +0.008
(% of transactions)

Score Score
BBB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 51
Guangzhou
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

corruption
health services
30.4%
26.6%
68
13,300,000 green spaces 21.4%
unemployment 17.6%
Out of 118
security 15.1%
▬ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
68 in 2020
HDI 0.749 0.753 0.758 0.761 +0.003
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CCC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 52
Hamburg
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

school education
26.9%
40
(Eurostat) also demand priority attention. green spaces 18.3%
recycling 18.0%
Out of 118
corruption 14.8%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
22 in 2020
HDI 0.936 0.938 0.939 0.947 +0.008
(% of transactions)

Score Score
A Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 53
Hangzhou
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

social mobility
security
31.1%
25.4%
66
recycling 17.8%
Out of 118
unemployment 15.2%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
65 in 2020
HDI 0.749 0.753 0.758 0.761 +0.003
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CCC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 54
Hanoi
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City
the greater the priority for the city. affordable housing 36.4%

public transport
31.6%
87
4,680,000 unemployment 21.9%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
84 in 2020
HDI 0.685 0.690 0.693 0.704 +0.011
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 55
Hanover
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

air pollution
public transport
27.8%
22.9%
47
540,000 basic amenities 20.6%
green spaces 16.6%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
33 in 2020
HDI 0.936 0.938 0.939 0.947 +0.008
(% of transactions)

Score Score
A Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 56
Helsinki
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

green spaces
28.5%
27.5%
6
650,000 road congestion 25.0%
strong Alignment implies that these areas social mobility 23.0%
(Eurostat) also demand priority attention. air pollution 22.7%
Out of 118
corruption 8.8%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2 in 2020
HDI 0.922 0.924 0.925 0.938 +0.013
(% of transactions)

Score Score
AA Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 57
Ho Chi Minh City
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

public transport
health services
34.1%
32.3%
88
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
83 in 2020
HDI 0.685 0.690 0.693 0.704 +0.011
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 58
Hong Kong
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

SMART BACKGROUND INFORMATION their city. This is the total bar. The higher citizen engagement 38.0%
CITY City

social mobility
31.3%
29.7%
41
Out of 118
green spaces 16.0%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
32 in 2020
HDI 0.931 0.937 0.939 0.949 +0.010
(% of transactions)

Score Score
BB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 59
Hyderabad
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

respondents were asked to select 5 that basic amenities 47.5%
CITY City

security
35.1%
34.4%
92
10,000,000 recycling 28.2%
strong Alignment implies that these areas affordable housing 26.7%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
85 in 2020
HDI 0.637 0.643 0.647 0.645 -0.002
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 60
Istanbul
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

security
37.2%
32.2%
94
Out of 118
N/A ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
not in 2020
HDI 0.800 0.805 0.807 0.820 +0.013
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 61
Jakarta
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

security
green spaces 29.9%
36.5%
91
respondents who also answered the affordable housing 24.2%
recycling 12.4%
Out of 118
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
94 in 2020
HDI 0.700 0.704 0.707 0.718 +0.011
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 62
Kiel
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

public transport
29.2%
53
250,000 recycling 19.2%
Out of 118
corruption 10.0%
N/A ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
not in 2020
HDI 0.936 0.938 0.939 0.947 +0.008
(% of transactions)

Score Score
BBB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 63
Krakow
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

public transport
34.3%
30.8%
80
770,000 basic amenities 27.2%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
58 in 2020
HDI 0.864 0.868 0.872 0.880 +0.008
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CCC Mobility
Mobility


Kuala Lumpur
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

air pollution
30.0%
27.3%
74
green spaces 20.3%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
54 in 2020
HDI 0.801 0.802 0.804 0.810 +0.006
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CCC Mobility
Mobility


Kyiv
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
From a list of 15 indicators, survey corruption 65.9%

CITY City

security
health services
30.0%
29.4%
82
Out of 118
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
98 in 2020
HDI 0.746 0.747 0.750 0.779 +0.029
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CC Mobility
Mobility


Lagos
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

basic amenities
41.9%
115
Out of 118
green spaces 2.9%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
109 in 2020
HDI 0.528 0.533 0.534 0.539 +0.005
(% of transactions)

Score Score
D Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 67
Lausanne
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

public transport
green spaces
24.2%
23.3%
5
Out of 118
N/A ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
not in 2020
HDI 0.943 0.943 0.946 0.955 +0.009
(% of transactions)

Score Score
AAA Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 68
Leeds
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

recycling
public transport
29.6%
28.0%
24
790,000 fulfilling employment 25.6%
Out of 118
corruption 11.2%
N/A ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
not in 2020
HDI 0.918 0.919 0.920 0.932 +0.012
(% of transactions)

Score Score
BBB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 69
Lille
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

public transport
22.0%
20.3%
44
green spaces 15.4%
Out of 118
N/A ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
not in 2020
HDI 0.887 0.890 0.891 0.901 +0.010
(% of transactions)

Score Score
B Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 70
Lisbon
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

air pollution
37.7%
31.7%
95
green spaces 12.8%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
75 in 2020
HDI 0.846 0.848 0.850 0.864 +0.014
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 71
London
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

recycling
29.7%
27.6%
22
Out of 118
corruption 15.4%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
15 in 2020
HDI 0.918 0.919 0.920 0.932 +0.012
(% of transactions)

Score Score
BBB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 72
Los Angeles
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

school education
29.6%
29.0%
31
12,450,000 corruption 23.7%
green spaces 16.9%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
26 in 2020
HDI 0.919 0.919 0.920 0.926 +0.006
(% of transactions)

Score Score
BB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 73
Lyon
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

public transport
health services
21.3%
20.8%
39
corruption 16.5%
Out of 118
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
51 in 2020
HDI 0.887 0.890 0.891 0.901 +0.010
(% of transactions)

Score Score
BB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 74
Madrid
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

corruption
road congestion
32.6%
26.4%
34
3,270,000 recycling 17.9%
Out of 118
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
45 in 2020
HDI 0.888 0.891 0.893 0.904 +0.011
(% of transactions)

Score Score
B Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 75
Makassar
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

air pollution
green spaces
37.5%
31.4%
100
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
96 in 2020
HDI 0.700 0.704 0.707 0.718 +0.011
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 76
Manchester
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

public transport
30.4%
28.5%
26
550,000 recycling 24.9%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
17 in 2020
HDI 0.918 0.919 0.920 0.932 +0.012
(% of transactions)

Score Score
BBB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 77
Manila
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

air pollution
affordable housing
40.7%
38.7%
102
recycling 16.6%
Out of 118
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
104 in 2020
HDI 0.704 0.709 0.712 0.718 +0.006
(% of transactions)

Score Score
C Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 78
Marseille
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

public transport
corruption
26.9%
26.4%
83
900,000 green spaces 21.7%
strong Alignment implies that these areas health services 18.8%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
78 in 2020
HDI 0.887 0.890 0.891 0.901 +0.010
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CCC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 79
Medan
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

health services
39.8%
99
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
97 in 2020
HDI 0.700 0.704 0.707 0.718 +0.011
(% of transactions)

Score Score
C Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 80
Medellin
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

unemployment
42.7%
101
green spaces 13.0%
Out of 118
recycling 11.4%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
72 in 2020
HDI 0.759 0.760 0.761 0.767 +0.006
(% of transactions)

Score Score
C Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 81
Medina
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

recycling
health services
30.0%
28.3%
73
1,490,000 corruption 23.3%
(UN World Urbanization Prospects) also demand priority attention. air pollution 21.7%
security 15.0%
Out of 118
N/A ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
not in 2020
HDI 0.857 0.856 0.857 0.854 -0.003
(% of transactions)
RATING GNI per capita (PPP $) 51,099 49,371 49,338 47,495 -1,843 LEGEND: GROUP MEAN CITY

Score Score
CCC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 82
Melbourne
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

public transport
recycling
27.5%
25.7%
19
Out of 118
green spaces 13.4%
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
20 in 2020
HDI 0.935 0.937 0.938 0.944 +0.006
(% of transactions)

Score Score
BBB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 83
Mexico City
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

air pollution
37.9%
108
strong Alignment implies that these areas affordable housing 21.5%
recycling 15.1%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
90 in 2020
HDI 0.764 0.765 0.767 0.779 +0.012
(% of transactions)

Score Score
C Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 84
Milan
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

corruption
public transport
30.1%
29.2%
81
1,410,000 recycling 17.8%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
74 in 2020
HDI 0.878 0.881 0.883 0.892 +0.009
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CCC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 85
Montreal
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

corruption
school education
29.5%
25.2%
38
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
21 in 2020
HDI 0.920 0.921 0.922 0.929 +0.007
(% of transactions)

Score Score
BBB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 86
Moscow
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

recycling
29.9%
29.8%
54
green spaces 12.9%
Out of 118
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
56 in 2020
HDI 0.817 0.822 0.824 0.824 +0.000
(% of transactions)

Score Score
B Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 87
Mumbai
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

green spaces
health services
36.3%
34.9%
90
Out of 118
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
93 in 2020
HDI 0.637 0.643 0.647 0.645 -0.002
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 88
Munich
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

recycling
green spaces
25.0%
23.1%
14
Out of 118
corruption 10.0%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
11 in 2020
HDI 0.936 0.938 0.939 0.947 +0.008
(% of transactions)

Score Score
AA Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 89
Nairobi
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
From a list of 15 indicators, survey basic amenities 69.1%

CITY City
the greater the priority for the city. affordable housing 56.6%

road congestion
33.1%
28.7%
113
recycling 8.9%
Out of 118
green spaces 5.5%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
108 in 2020
HDI 0.568 0.574 0.579 0.601 +0.022
(% of transactions)

Score Score
D Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 90
Nanjing
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

basic amenities
social mobility
30.4%
27.8%
64
8,850,000 security 24.9%
Out of 118
unemployment 14.2%
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
66 in 2020
HDI 0.749 0.753 0.758 0.761 +0.003
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CCC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 91
New Delhi
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

corruption
road congestion
31.9%
30.3%
89
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
86 in 2020
HDI 0.637 0.643 0.647 0.645 -0.002
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 92
New York
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

corruption
public transport
30.2%
30.1%
12
recycling 17.0%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
10 in 2020
HDI 0.919 0.919 0.920 0.926 +0.006
(% of transactions)

Score Score
BB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 93
Newcastle
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

they perceived as the most urgent for fulfilling employment 43.5%
CITY City

recycling
air pollution
31.8%
30.3%
21
corruption 14.4%
Out of 118
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
23 in 2020
HDI 0.918 0.919 0.920 0.932 +0.012
(% of transactions)

Score Score
A Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 94
Osaka
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

road congestion
unemployment 29.6%
35.7%
86
corruption 19.9%
Out of 118
recycling 13.9%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
80 in 2020
HDI 0.910 0.913 0.915 0.919 +0.004
(% of transactions)

Score Score
B Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 95
Oslo
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City
the greater the priority for the city. social mobility 30.9%

road congestion
air pollution
30.5%
27.4%
3
(UN World Urbanization Prospects) also demand priority attention. corruption 19.2%
Out of 118
green spaces 17.6%
recycling 16.9%
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
5 in 2020
HDI 0.951 0.953 0.954 0.957 +0.003
(% of transactions)
AA LEGEND: MIN CITY MEAN GROUP MAX

Score Score
AAA Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 96
Paris
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

health services
recycling
25.9%
23.7%
61
Out of 118
▬ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
61 in 2020
HDI 0.887 0.890 0.891 0.901 +0.010
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CCC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 97
Philadelphia
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

they perceived as the most urgent for school education 49.3%
CITY City
the greater the priority for the city. road congestion 37.0%

corruption
air pollution
29.9%
29.6%
85
green spaces 17.5%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
52 in 2020
HDI 0.919 0.919 0.920 0.926 +0.006
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CCC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 98
Phoenix
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

security
30.0%
26.1%
62
4,510,000 corruption 23.2%
Out of 118
green spaces 13.5%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
39 in 2020
HDI 0.919 0.919 0.920 0.926 +0.006
(% of transactions)

Score Score
BB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 99
Prague
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

citizen engagement
social mobility
25.8%
20.6%
78
(Eurostat) also demand priority attention. unemployment 14.1%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
44 in 2020
HDI 0.885 0.888 0.891 0.900 +0.009
(% of transactions)

Score Score
B Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 100
Rabat
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

road congestion
31.5%
28.6%
103
Out of 118
recycling 13.2%
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
105 in 2020
HDI 0.669 0.675 0.676 0.686 +0.010
(% of transactions)

Score Score
C Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 101
Rio de Janeiro
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

basic amenities
37.1%
118
strong Alignment implies that these areas road congestion 12.3%
recycling 10.2%
Out of 118
green spaces 6.2%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
102 in 2020
HDI 0.757 0.760 0.761 0.765 +0.004
(% of transactions)

Score Score
D Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 102
Riyadh
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

basic amenities
31.8%
31.1%
30
7,230,000 recycling 28.0%
corruption 20.3%
Out of 118
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
53 in 2020
HDI 0.857 0.856 0.857 0.854 -0.003
(% of transactions)

Score Score
B Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 103
Rome
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
From a list of 15 indicators, survey recycling 68.8%

respondents were asked to select 5 that public transport 59.4%
CITY City

unemployment
corruption 28.9%
40.2%
112
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
101 in 2020
HDI 0.878 0.881 0.883 0.892 +0.009
(% of transactions)

Score Score
C Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 104
Rotterdam
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

green spaces
recycling
28.5%
26.7%
27
Out of 118
corruption 12.9%
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
29 in 2020
HDI 0.929 0.932 0.934 0.944 +0.010
(% of transactions)

Score Score
BBB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 105
San Francisco
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

public transport
corruption
27.5%
25.1%
60
recycling 13.6%
Out of 118
green spaces 11.7%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
27 in 2020
HDI 0.919 0.919 0.920 0.926 +0.006
(% of transactions)

Score Score
B Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 106
San José
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

basic amenities
public transport
22.5%
20.8%
109
1,400,000 recycling 17.5%
(UN World Urbanization Prospects) also demand priority attention. health services 15.8%
Out of 118
green spaces 7.5%
N/A ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
not in 2020
HDI 0.789 0.792 0.794 0.810 +0.016
(% of transactions)

Score Score
C Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 107
Santiago
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

38.3%
110
(UN World Urbanization Prospects) also demand priority attention. road congestion 18.8%
Out of 118
green spaces 15.2%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
91 in 2020
HDI 0.843 0.845 0.847 0.851 +0.004
(% of transactions)

Score Score
C Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 108
Sao Paulo
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

air pollution
basic amenities
31.1%
30.1%
117
respondents who also answered the affordable housing 29.8%
strong Alignment implies that these areas road congestion 19.9%
recycling 13.0%
Out of 118
green spaces 12.7%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
100 in 2020
HDI 0.757 0.760 0.761 0.765 +0.004
(% of transactions)

Score Score
D Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 109
Seattle
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

school education
25.4%
25.0%
43
recycling 15.9%
Out of 118
green spaces 11.1%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
37 in 2020
HDI 0.919 0.919 0.920 0.926 +0.006
(% of transactions)

Score Score
BB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 110
Seoul
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

they perceived as the most urgent for fulfilling employment 46.1%
CITY City
the greater the priority for the city. road congestion 36.2%

security
basic amenities
31.3%
30.5%
13
Out of 118
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
47 in 2020
HDI 0.901 0.904 0.906 0.916 +0.010
(% of transactions)

Score Score
B Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 111
Shanghai
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

the percentage of responses per area, social mobility 31.3%
CITY City

public transport
basic amenities
26.7%
26.7%
71
security 16.4%
Out of 118
recycling 16.3%
green spaces 14.4%
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
81 in 2020
HDI 0.749 0.753 0.758 0.761 +0.003
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 112
Shenzhen
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

SMART BACKGROUND INFORMATION their city. This is the total bar. The higher social mobility 41.3%
CITY City

citizen engagement
unemployment
34.6%
30.0%
65
respondents who also answered the health services 29.3%
security 14.4%
Out of 118
green spaces 12.3%
recycling 10.1%
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
67 in 2020
HDI 0.749 0.753 0.758 0.761 +0.003
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CCC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 113
Singapore
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

the percentage of responses per area, recycling 33.1%
CITY City

public transport
social mobility
28.7%
26.1%
1
5,940,000 security 23.6%
(UN World Urbanization Prospects) also demand priority attention. air pollution 18.8%
Out of 118
green spaces 17.4%
corruption 17.3%
▬ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1 in 2020
HDI 0.933 0.934 0.935 0.938 +0.003
(% of transactions)
AAA LEGEND: MIN CITY MEAN GROUP MAX
AAA in 2020 STRUCTURES TECHNOLOGIES

Score Score
AAA Mobility
Mobility
AAA The city provides information on traffic congestion through mobile phones 75.2

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 114
Sofia
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

affordable housing
unemployment
32.5%
28.6%
107
(Eurostat) also demand priority attention. public transport 15.5%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
89 in 2020
HDI 0.812 0.813 0.816 0.816 +0.000
CITY Mean years of schooling 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.4 -0.4
(% of transactions)

Score Score
C Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 115
St. Petersburg
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

basic amenities
34.4%
33.5%
79
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
73 in 2020
HDI 0.817 0.822 0.824 0.824 +0.000
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CCC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 116
Stockholm
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

social mobility
24.4%
23.5%
25
950,000 recycling 20.8%
Out of 118
corruption 8.1%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
16 in 2020
HDI 0.934 0.935 0.937 0.945 +0.008
(% of transactions)

Score Score
A Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 117
Sydney
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

recycling
security
28.9%
27.9%
18
green spaces 14.6%
Out of 118
▬ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
18 in 2020
HDI 0.935 0.937 0.938 0.944 +0.006
(% of transactions)

Score Score
BBB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 118
Taipei City
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

security
health services
28.9%
27.2%
4
Out of 118
recycling 9.4%
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
8 in 2020
HDI 0.903 0.907 0.911 0.916 +0.005
(% of transactions)

Score Score
A Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 119
Tallinn
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

unemployment
recycling 23.6%
31.6%
56
Out of 118
air pollution 18.0%
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
59 in 2020
HDI 0.875 0.879 0.882 0.892 +0.010
(% of transactions)

Score Score
B Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 120
Tel Aviv
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

corruption
24.1%
23.1%
42
Out of 118
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
50 in 2020
HDI 0.902 0.904 0.906 0.919 +0.013
(% of transactions)

Score Score
B Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 121
The Hague
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

green spaces
air pollution
28.5%
28.0%
23
770,000 unemployment 26.6%
Out of 118
corruption 11.9%
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
28 in 2020
HDI 0.929 0.932 0.934 0.944 +0.010
(% of transactions)

Score Score
A Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 122
Tianjin
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

basic amenities
security 24.6%
32.8%
70
13,590,000 social mobility 21.7%
Out of 118
unemployment 15.1%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
63 in 2020
HDI 0.749 0.753 0.758 0.761 +0.003
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CCC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 123
Tokyo
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

public transport
air pollution
30.3%
28.0%
84
(UN World Urbanization Prospects) also demand priority attention. corruption 19.8%
green spaces 19.8%
Out of 118
recycling 18.2%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
79 in 2020
HDI 0.910 0.913 0.915 0.919 +0.004
(% of transactions)

Score Score
B Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 124
Toronto
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

security
30.4%
28.8%
36
6,200,000 corruption 17.4%
green spaces 13.8%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
30 in 2020
HDI 0.920 0.921 0.922 0.929 +0.007
(% of transactions)

Score Score
BBB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 125
Vancouver
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

corruption
28.7%
23.3%
33
Out of 118
recycling 14.3%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
19 in 2020
HDI 0.920 0.921 0.922 0.929 +0.007
(% of transactions)

Score Score
BBB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 126
Vienna
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

school education
citizen engagement
24.9%
23.5%
11
respondents who also answered the health services 23.5%
1,930,000 green spaces 22.0%
Out of 118
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
25 in 2020
HDI 0.909 0.912 0.914 0.922 +0.008
CITY Mean years of schooling 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.5 -0.1
(% of transactions)

Score Score
A Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 127
Warsaw
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

basic amenities
green spaces
33.5%
30.9%
75
1,780,000 recycling 25.3%
Out of 118
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
55 in 2020
HDI 0.864 0.868 0.872 0.880 +0.008
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CCC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 128
Washington D.C.
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

public transport
28.9%
27.2%
35
5,320,000 corruption 23.8%
Out of 118
green spaces 15.0%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
12 in 2020
HDI 0.919 0.919 0.920 0.926 +0.006
(% of transactions)

Score Score
BBB Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 129
Zaragoza
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

school education
corruption
25.0%
24.8%
15
670,000 recycling 18.3%
road congestion 16.2%
Out of 118
air pollution 13.4%
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
48 in 2020
HDI 0.888 0.891 0.893 0.904 +0.011
(% of transactions)

Score Score
A Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 130
Zhuhai
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

they perceived as the most urgent for social mobility 41.9%
CITY City

affordable housing
basic amenities
32.3%
30.8%
63
Out of 118
unemployment 7.9%
▼ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
62 in 2020
HDI 0.749 0.753 0.758 0.761 +0.003
(% of transactions)

Score Score
CCC Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 131
Zurich
PRIORITY AREAS
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CITY City

recycling
26.2%
26.2%
2
Out of 118
▲ ATTITUDES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
3 in 2020
HDI 0.943 0.943 0.946 0.955 +0.009
(% of transactions)
AA LEGEND: MIN CITY MEAN GROUP MAX

Score Score
AAA Mobility
Mobility

S m a r t C i t y I n d e x 2 0 2 1 132
A collaboration between:
IMD WORLD SCO

COMPETITIVENESS SMART CITY
30
YE ARS CENTER OBSERVATORY

Smart City Index2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Smart City Index2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Smart City

IMD WORLD SCO

Charles Baudelaire, Mademoiselle Bistouri

Italo Calvino, Invisible Cities

Professor Arturo Bris Professor Cheong Koon Hean Bruno Lanvin

Smart City Index 2021 3

Abu Dhabi............................................................................................................. 15 Budapest............................................................................................................... 36

Smart City Index 2021 4

Smart City Index 2021 5

The IMD World Competitiveness Center team:

Professor Arturo Bris Director

Smart City Index 2021 6

Smart City Index 2021 7

Smart City Index 2021 8

Smart City Index 2021 9

Smart City Ranking Background Information

RANKING City green spaces 24.5% pollution 25.7%

Ratings for each city are calculated from ▲ ATTITUDES

CITY The Methodology

RATINGS Air pollution is not a problem FACTOR indicators, is notsurvey

RATINGS Air pollution is88.1

% of respondents who agree or strongly agree with the statement

RANKING The left hand section of each bar shows

vis-à-vis face recognition, andSMART whether online information

Key sur vey data collected RATING

Technologies (right side), under

for the cit y Activities

Maximum ScoresOpportunities(light (Workred bar)

The Methodology section provides Opportunities (Work & School)

down to examine all Structures or Governance Governance

to examine a key area inAllfrom both

Structures and Technologies.

For group 1 (highest HDI quartile), scale AAA–AA–A–BBB– BB

7. Rankings are then presented in two formats:

From a list of 15 indicators, survey affordable housing 74.3%

RANKING The left hand section of each bar shows

BB LEGEND: MIN CITY MEAN GROUP MAX

BB in 2020 STRUCTURES TECHNOLOGIES

Opportunities (Work & School) Opportunities (Work & School)

From a list of 15 indicators, survey affordable housing 71.4%

RANKING The left hand section of each bar shows

Population the Alignment - the proportion of those

D LEGEND: MIN CITY MEAN GROUP MAX

D in 2020 STRUCTURES TECHNOLOGIES

Opportunities (Work & School) Opportunities (Work & School)

From a list of 15 indicators, survey affordable housing 67.0%

RANKING The left hand section of each bar shows

BBB LEGEND: MIN CITY MEAN GROUP MAX

A in 2020 STRUCTURES TECHNOLOGIES

Opportunities (Work & School) Opportunities (Work & School)

From a list of 15 indicators, survey unemployment 54.0%

RANKING The left hand section of each bar shows

B LEGEND: MIN CITY MEAN GROUP MAX

B in 2020 STRUCTURES TECHNOLOGIES

Opportunities (Work & School) Opportunities (Work & School)

From a list of 15 indicators, survey security 58.5%

RANKING The left hand section of each bar shows

C LEGEND: MIN CITY MEAN GROUP MAX

C in 2020 STRUCTURES TECHNOLOGIES

Opportunities (Work & School) Opportunities (Work & School)

From a list of 15 indicators, survey affordable housing 82.5%

RANKING The left hand section of each bar shows

A LEGEND: MIN CITY MEAN GROUP MAX