Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Cities and Society

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scs

A systematic literature review of the smart city transformation process: The

role and interaction of stakeholders and technology
Yuxi Dai *, Sandra Hasanefendic, Bart Bossink
Breakthrough Technology Innovation Group, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081HZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study describes and analyses the developmental processes of cities that aim to transform into smart cities
Smart city and outlines the core scenarios within which these developmental processes take place. It concentrates on the
Smart city stakeholders role of and interaction between stakeholders and technology in the smart city transformation process. Knowledge
Smart city projects
and insight into these developmental processes and core scenarios are scarce and necessary, as they can
Smart city technologies
contribute to a possible acceleration and increase in the effectiveness of smart city transformation strategies. As a
result of a systematic literature review, this study develops a theoretical framework that describes five stages of
smart city transformation as a generic developmental and iterative process with feedback. These stages are (1)
smart city goal definition, (2) smart city technology innovation, (3) smart city strategy development, (4) smart
city plan implementation, and (5) smart city plan evaluation. Different developments and outcomes of these five
stages result in four alternative scenarios for smart city development: (a) spiralling up, (b) downward repetition,
(c) corrective feedback, and (d) upward feedback. Academics can use the insights in the five developmental
processes and four core scenarios as a general framework to interpret, position, and analyse specific smart city
projects and processes. Practitioners can use the insights into these developmental processes and core scenarios
to inform their management, steering and governance activities in the smart city processes in which they
participate.

1. Introduction
More than four billion people live in cities, which roughly represents
56 % of the world’s population (The World Bank, 2022). Technological
innovation is considered as one of the cornerstones of this ever-growing
urbanization and ongoing population condensation (e.g., Kumar et al.,
2020). On average, cities have grown from 3,500 citizens per square
kilometer to 4,261 in the last 15 years (Demographia, 2022). Simulta­
neously, cities currently occupy less than 5 % of the global land and
consume more than 75 % of all world’s natural resources (Abu-Rayash &
Dincer, 2021). In this context, cities are under increasing pressure to
balance the triangle of soci(et)al, environmental and economic quality
(Fanning et al., 2022). To accommodate this balancing act, many cities
have developed significant technology-driven projects (see Mondschein
et al., 2021), often termed “smart city” initiatives, to alleviate the
environmental, economic, and soci(et)al pressures of the increasing city
population and at the same time to increase the city quality on all these
three aspects (Hollands 2008; Ben Letaifa, 2015; Ekman et al., 2019;
Thuzar, 2011). In other words, this urban transformation process from
ordinary cities to smart cities (Angelidou, 2015; Letaifa, 2015; Musiolik
et al., 2020a) is geared towards sustainable economic development
(Grossi & Trunova, 2021), an improved and sustainable social envi­
ronment, and a greater standard of living for its citizens (Ballas, 2013;
Obringer & Nateghi, 2021). Nevertheless, smart city development is still
in its infancy, and many challenges persist, for example in the areas of
aforementioned sustainability (see Khan et al., 2020), technology
development and implementation (see Mondschein et al., 2021), and
work and careers of inhabitants (see Curseu et al., 2021). A complete
and inclusive transformation to the “smart city” is still a hard to achieve
goal (Zuzul, 2019; Obringer & Nateghi, 2021).
Cities’ transformation towards becoming smart cities is commonly
understood through specific and often measurable economic, environ­
mental and soci(et)al outcomes (Ang-Tan & Ang, 2022; Jaekel, 2015;
Yigitcanlar et al., 2019; Musiolik et al., 2020b), which are inclusive of
sustainability goals as the practices of smart city development and sus­
tainable development overlap with one another (Yigitcanlar et al.,
2019). Namely, a smart city should serve inhabitants’ economic welfare
and organisations’ competitive position in the market (the so-called

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: y.dai@vu.nl (Y. Dai).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.105112
Received 2 January 2023; Received in revised form 19 May 2023; Accepted 9 December 2023
Available online 15 December 2023
2210-6707/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Y. Dai et al.
economic smart-associated outcome), meet the well-being requirements
of residents of urban areas (the soci(et)al smart-associated outcome),
and must establish a balance in which economic and soci(et)al needs do
not come at the expense of natural environmental quality, but preferably
contribute to it (the environmental smart-associated outcome) (Lebru­
ment et al., 2021). Moreover, a transformation from ordinary cities to
smart cities needs investments in social capital and human resources to
further optimize traditional technology (e.g., transport systems) and
develop new, and modern technology (e.g., information and communi­
cation infrastructures) to support the transformation process (Caragliu
et al., 2011; Sakuma et al., 2021) towards better liveability, workability,
and sustainability (Paroutis et al., 2014; Alizadeh, 2017). In addition,
smart cities need wise management of natural resources and governance
among stakeholders in the decision-making process (Giffinger & Gud­
run, 2010; Mattoni et al., 2015; Obringer & Nateghi, 2021; Leite, 2022).
Despite the abundant information regarding the relevance of the
three smart-associated outcomes for smart city transformation as well as
their relation to sustainability dimensions (Bibri & Krogstie, 2017; Blasi
et al., 2022; Nam & Pardo, 2011), little insight is available about how
cities may achieve these outcomes (with some exception, e.g., Jaekel,
2015). In particular, for cities in different stages of urban development
seeking a smart transformation, a research-based protocol on how to
organize and implement the transformation process would be a useful
instrument. Concretely, such an instrument would support managers of
organizations that hold a stake in smart city transformation in going
through the transformation process (Adapa, 2018; van den Bosch &
Sang, 2017). Simultaneously, it would also be relevant to understand
which and why specific stakeholders initiate or participate in the smart
city transformation process so as to further decide when and how to
engage them actively in pursuit of specific smart city implementation
and development activities (Paroutis et al., 2014; Macke et al., 2019;
van den Buuse & Kolk, 2019; Leroux & Pupion, 2022). For instance, the
implementation priority in terms of environmental or soci(et)al ele­
ments is often decided by local authorities (Mattoni et al., 2015; Jaekel,
2015), which means that not all stakeholders will be committed equally
to these outcomes and not all smart-associated outcomes will be
addressed at the same time or with the same technological tools.
Furthermore, even if a standard protocol for smart city development
and performance is used, its guidance is limited due to contextual and
technological differences between cities. The implementation priority of
smart technology initiatives also depends on the approach to smart city
transformation adopted by stakeholders. There are two main approaches
to smart city development discussed in the literature: the top-down and
the bottom-up approach. The top-down approach considers national and
local governments as key decision-makers during the process of smart
city transformation. On the contrary, when the bottom-up approach is
adopted, the decision-makers consist of citizens, communities, and pri­
vate firms(Ceballos & Larios, 2016). The mainstream of cities that have
already made some progress in transferring to smarter cities, such as for
example Amsterdam, usually employ a mix of both approaches and the
establishment of an inclusive decision-making process (Camboim et al.,
2019). In other cities however, one of the approaches is dominant, such
as in India where a top-down approach implies that the city relies on the
national government to provide area-oriented smart city definitions and
guidelines. Then, smart initiatives are launched to address environ­
mental and soci(et)al smart-associated outcomes through technological
solutions. In this case, the next step is that local governments provide
proposals for smart city planning and implement it at the level of pro­
jects through technological objectives (Adapa, 2018). Such a top-down
approach often reflects business providers’ interests rather than users’
benefits (Mora et al., 2019a). At the same time, a bottom-up approach
can become challenging and unpredictable because it is often based
solely on project-driven governance. These small-scale and
project-based developments might have difficulties in being adopted on
2
Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112
a city-wide level, among others also due to the differences in national
and local policies. Additionally, the very participative bottom-up
concept relies on citizen empowerment, which cannot be definitively
targeted at the beginning of pilot projects (Angelidou, 2014; Goel &
Vishnoi, 2021).
In the literature and in practice, there is, therefore, a shortage and
need for knowledge and insight into generic processes that cities go
through if they want to develop from ordinary to smart cities. Insight
into the generic developmental processes concerns the role and inter­
action of stakeholders and technology in the course of cities’ smart city
ambitions.
In this paper, we conduct a systematic literature review to collect,
classify and organize academic publications available on smart city
transformations in order to develop a developmental process framework
of ordinary city-to-smart city transformation, which builds on stake­
holder and technology roles and interaction for achieving the three
smart-associated outcomes: economic, environmental and soci(et)al.
The main research question thus is: What are the stages of the smart
city transformation process and what characterizes the role and interaction of
stakeholders and technologies in each of the transformative stages? We
develop a theoretical framework that describes smart city trans­
formation as a generic developmental cyclical process of five stages with
iterative feedback. Each stage describes the driving and leading stake­
holders and their interaction with smart city technology. Cities that go
through this process choose or are confronted with one to four core
scenarios for smart city development, which we elaborate on in our
discussion.
2. Methodology
To develop the theoretical framework and obtain an answer to our
research question, a systematic literature review approach is adopted.
The systematic literature review analyzes a complete set of literature
covering a certain topic, and in our case, the smart city, in a certain time
period and synthesizes this literature database using a replicable and
transparent approach aiming at minimizing bias by providing traceable
details of processing data (Tranfield et al., 2003; Denyer & Tranfield,
2009). The employed methodology consists of locating studies, publi­
cation justification, analysis, synthesis, and reporting the results
(Denyer & Tranfield, 2009). It is suitable for developing a theoretical
framework or a theoretical model that can be further empirically vali­
dated and evaluated in qualitative and quantitative follow-up studies
(Levy & Ellis, 2006).
The following sections highlights the methodological approach step
by step.
1. Locating studies
Relevant studies were sourced from academic databases using search
strings and Boolean operators. The search strings were first mined in
terms of terminology to find alternate search terms that are related by
identifying how often the keywords appear and which other terms
appear with them by a number of occurrences. We identified two groups
of keywords concerning “smart cities” and “factors” to engage publica­
tions in the field of smart cities, with a focus on stakeholders and/or
technology, which are mentioned as “drivers” or “factors” in some ar­
ticles (Adapa, 2018; Borsekova et al., 2018; Lebrument et al., 2021).
Two databases (Web of Science and ScienceDirect) were chosen to cover
smart city research. Keywords were transformed into search strings (of
which details are shown in Appendix A), which were applied to the title
and abstract searches of journal and conference papers to capture the
surge of smart city research (Sharifi et al., 2021). In Web of Science,
these keywords were applied from 1st January 2007 to 31st January
Y. Dai et al.
2022; Since ScienceDirect prevents specifying search windows to days,
we applied these to the full years of 2007 to 2022.
2. Publication justification
In the initial search result, including articles in languages other than
English, a total of 7,823 articles were retrieved, including 7,595 aca­
demic papers and 228 proceedings. After deduplication, the total
number of articles was reduced to 5,711. Subsequent screening for the
relevance of content was performed in five steps: journal screening,
journal quality screening, title and abstract screening, article’s quality
screening, and full-text screening. The first and second authors of this
paper determined screening criteria by randomly choosing 50 articles of
the 5,562 articles, reading titles and abstracts, and then inducing
criteria. These criteria were refined by a second round of random se­
lection and induction after the journals’ quality screening. These refined
criteria are shown in Appendix B.
First, the initial set of publications was screened according to the
subject area. 4,488 publications were removed at this stage as they were
published in unrelated journals or conferences. We also removed an
additional 117 articles of 149 articles written in a language other than
English at this stage of our analysis. We kept those in Chinese and
Portuguese, which were coincidentally also the most representative
sample of non-English articles written on the topic. We decided to keep
the publications in these two languages at this stage strategically
because the two co-authors speak the languages which increases validity
and translatability (see Pieper & Puljak, 2021). This totalled 1,223 ar­
ticles for further analysis.
Subsequently, the authors excluded articles from journals in unre­
lated fields and articles from journals ranked lower than Q2 in SJR 2020,
after which 856 publications remained. The second phase of the
screening process commenced with looking at titles and abstracts. This
was done by the first author, and then discussed thoroughly with the
second author. Subsequently, 339 articles remained, which was still a
relatively large sample number of articles for full-text screening. Then,
one more step of applying the stricter condition (whether the publica­
tion is from a journal with an impact factor higher or equal to 4) was
added to the original five-step method of systematic review, which
narrowed the number of publications down to 197. A comparable pro­
cess of selection was followed for the subsequent full-text screening,
resulting in 114 articles selected for this review. During the full-text
screening, publications that could not provide information to answer
the research question, for instance, because the research in the publi­
cation focuses on the optimization of online public participation tools’
functions and capability, were excluded (Afzalan et al., 2017). Following
the approach of Ruhlandt’s study (2018) and Dai et al.’s systematic
review (2022), a further 11 articles were included by scrutinizing the
references used in those 114 articles, which were commonly cited and
contributed to this paper. Finally, the result of the article number for
analysis came down to 125 (see Appendix A), as shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Flow diagram of the publication selection process.
3
Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112
Table 1
Number of publications and citation number of publications by year.
3. Analysis
The earliest article in the literature selection was published in 2012,
with more than 500 citations (see first year in Table 1) and was written
by Lazaroiu and Roscia (2012), proposing a model for computing the
smart city index and the computation of assigning weights for included
indicators.
Between 2007 and 2011, there was a lack of publications discussing
queries related to the transformation towards the smart city, and the
ones that were available came from journals with unrelated subjects or
journals with an impact factor lower than 4, which we did not consider
in our analysis.Table 1 shows that the number of publications related to
the smart city transformation topic, and those written in English,
increased sharply in/after 2018, and almost half of them have been cited
more than 100 times. From 2012 to the first half of 2022, the trend of
articles published in this area is upward, except for the sudden decrease
in 2020. It may be attributable to the coronavirus pandemic, during
which many studies had to be halted. Articles published in 2012-2018
with citations of more than 500 show the potential of this field.
For further analysis of the 125 papers, the authors used VOSviewer
software to do the co-occurrence analysis of keywords. Bibliographic
files downloaded from databases were provided as inputs to VOSviewer
to construct the bibliometric network (which is shown in Appendix A).
In the co-occurrence network of keywords, items were divided into
themes manually by the authors (Parmentola et al., 2022) . These
themes provided an outlet for understanding the different stages in
smart city development and elaborating on the role of and interaction
between stakeholders and technology in the smart city transformation
process. The final two stages of the undertaken methodology, i.e., syn­
thesis and reporting of results, are presented in the results section.
Y. Dai et al.
Fig. 2. Co-occurrence analysis (VOSviewer).
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive analysis
For descriptive analysis VOSviewer was used to cluster keywords
from articles, as shown in Fig. 2. This provides a first overview of the
relevant emerging themes.
To further refine this overview and following the guidance of (Par­
mentola et al., 2022), an analysis of the co-occurrence of keywords
identified 70 key items, which were divided manually into groups by
theme, as shown in Table 2.
Before being grouped, items had to be cleaned. Items like “urban” or
“cities” were excluded because they could not bring any information
related to the research question. Some items were combined, for they
refer to the same meaning in this study, e.g., “urban sustainability” and
“sustainable urban development”. Items referring to a certain region/
country were removed since they may be related to publications’ data
sources rather than smart cities’ themes. Then, groups of keywords were
4
Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112
presented to clarify the themes most discussed in publications regarding
smart cities.
3.2. Thematic analysis
3.2.1. Two developmental levels
We highlighted six themes related to the smart city transformation
process (Table 2), which then serve as a reference to explain the five
stages of smart city transformation and the role and interaction of
stakeholders and technology in the transformation process. When
further analyzing the six themes, it became clear that they co-occur,
discussing the smart-associated outcomes of the city on two distinct
levels: the level of “strategy” and of the “project” (Almirall et al., 2016;
Bundgaard & Borrás, 2021; Nicolas et al., 2021). The strategy level fo­
cuses on forming smart city strategies, which has several steps, including
identifying citizen requirements, integrating technological solutions,
evaluating effects on all relevant city-related aspects, and fulfilling the
financial benefits and economic growth. On the other hand, the project
Y. Dai et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112

Table 2 innovations can provide possibilities to advance the integration of eco­

Items related to smart city transformation excluded and grouped by theme. nomic, environmental and soci(et)al smart-associated outcomes into the
Exclusion and combination of Items in each group Group themes smart city strategy. The other two identified stages (smart city plan
items (Excluded or merged implementation and smart city plan evaluation) focus on the imple­
Items) mentation of smart city projects, which represents the project level. It
Cities; E-government; E-government; ICT; Systems; Technology focuses on a series of local-level projects that are congruent with one or
Framework; Governance; Innovation; Open several national, provincial or municipal transformation policies.
Growth; Initiatives; Lessons; innovation; Services; The five stages presented are sequential and repetitive in an ideal-
Organizations; Technologies; Big data;
Participation; Policy; Blockchain; Internet;
typical sense. This means that the literature hints at smart cities going
Quality of life; Quality-of- Internet of things; Privacy; through these stages over time. Fig. 3 shows this through the five stages
life; Smart city; Strategy; Adoption; Information- (see Appendix D for the identification of the driver and lead stakeholders
Sustainability; Trends; technology in each stage). The literature also indicates that once all stages have been
Urban; Urban development; Organizations; Participation; Stakeholder
completed, a new five-stage cycle may emerge and that this process can
Urban governance; China; Quality of life; Citizens; relationship
Citizens; Energy; Future; Partnerships; Perspective; be repeated multiple times, resulting in a further development of a smart
ICT; Indicators; Quality; Healthcare; Citizen city initiative. Fig. 3 visualizes this through the wheel-shaped form of
Sustainable city; Sustainable participation; Trust the five-stage process. The literature also indicates that after completing
development; Systems; Growth; Policy; Smart city; Strategy stage five, a smart city initiative can start again in stage three to
Urban sustainability; Strategy; Trends; Urban
Urbanization; Context; sustainability; Context;
implement improvements, which is also a new, smaller cycle that is less
Economy; Innovation; Resilience; Challenges; Eco- comprehensive than the full, five-stage cycle. Fig. 3 visualizes this
Knowledge; Open city through a feedback arrow from stage three to stage five. The ideal-
innovation; Partnerships; Energy; Quality; Economy; Project typical framework has been synthesized on the basis of the insights
Performance; Perspective; Knowledge; Performance;
from the systematic literature review. The sequence of stages, the
Resilience; Services; Smart Infrastructure; Land-use;
cities; Technologies; Big Management; Transport cyclicity of the process, and the feedback loop from stage three to five
data; Blockchain; Framework; Governance; Framework of were obtained through literature analysis and synthesis. It is a descrip­
Challenges; City; Initiatives; Indicators; Model transformation tive framework, not a prescriptive framework, and it is not excluded that
Healthcare; Internet; Lessons; Future; Impact Feedback cities with a smart city initiative follow a different order, skip stages, go
Internet of things; IoT;
in a reverse direction, ignore the feedback loop, temporarily and regu­
Privacy; System; Things;
Eco-city; Information; larly stop the process, and still achieve results. The framework repre­
Infrastructure; Land-use; sents an ideal-typical staging and process sequence and cyclicity, which
Management; Model; can be validated and tested through future research. Cities may, for
Sustainable urban
example, experience the five stages in different orders. This largely de­
development; Technology;
Transport; Urban- pends on the decision-making powers on strategy and project levels.
development; Adoption; This applies for instance to some cities in Saudi-Arabia and India, with a
Citizen participation; context in which decision-making is highly centralized due to the so­
Impact; Information- cioeconomic and political regimes. Cities then have to first draft the
technology; Sustainable
proposal for smart city development (which is Stage three in Fig. 3), and
cities; Trust
then the proposal is reviewed by the national government to make the
decision whether to permit and provide support for the proposal (which
level is about implementing smart city projects. At the project imple­ is Stage one in Fig. 3) (Adapa, 2018; Aina et al., 2019). Quite on the
mentation level, the project planning is determined, the resources contrary however, some cities avoid Stage one altogether (e.g., New
needed by the projects are gathered, and the tasks are detailed to ach­ York and Copenhagen) due to rich resources and the leading techno­
ieve certain objectives (Yigitcanlar & Lee, 2014). logical innovation level in the country, whereby a limited role of the
The main difference between the two levels is their aim. The strategy regional or national governments in these cities’ transitions to smart
level aims to formulate a smart city transformation strategy from the cities is actually a given (Angelidou, 2014; Madsen, 2018). Besides the
economic, environmental, and soci(et)al smart-associated outcome ideal-typical visualization and description of the smart city trans­
perspectives. It requires a top-down approach to critically examine and formation process, this study also focuses on describing and analyzing
set the smart city objectives. In contrast, the project level aims to achieve these processes. Fig. 3 illustrates this through a summary of the char­
set objectives (Camboim et al., 2019; Baibarac-Duignan & de Lange, acteristics at each stage. These characteristics focus on the role and
2021). It views smart city transformation from an operational lens. The interaction of stakeholders and technology, while other essential influ­
bottom-up approach is applied at the project level to accelerate citizen encing factors such as the geographical location of the city and the
empowerment and participation in strategy implementation. Generally, period in which the smart city transformation takes place are not cen­
the decision-makers at the strategy level are national governments or tral. The analytical value of the framework is therefore limited to the
other relevant city authorities while at the project level, the main stakeholder and technology factors, with the place and time factors only
decision-makers are associated to some form of local government. being discussed indirectly.
However, this varies per city and country depending on the political and
socioeconomic regime (Axelsson & Granath, 2018). For instance, for
New York, Chicago and Amsterdam, the smart city strategy is developed (1) Smart city goal definition
by city municipalities, and the projects are implemented by lower-level
governmental bodies of the city (Angelidou, 2014; Almirall et al., 2016; From the literature, it was clear that the majority of smart city
Shmelev & Shmeleva, 2019). transformations starts with defining the end goal of the smart city
transformation process. We call this stage: the smart city goal definition
3.2.2. Five developmental stages stage. In this stage, we observe a literature emphasis on the central role
As shown in Fig. 3, the first three identified stages (smart city goal of the relevant authorities as they try to reach a consensus on what a
definition, smart city technology innovation, and smart city strategy smart city is and how the economic, environmental and soci(et)al smart-
development) make up the strategy level, in which the main target is to associated outcomes should look like in a transformed city based on the
establish a common goal regarding how existing technological context of the city and the requirement prioritization (Paroutis et al.

5
Y. Dai et al.
Fig. 3. Five-stage process framework of smart city transformation.
2014; Mayaud et al., 2019; Akande et al., 2020; Kong & Woods, 2021).
The requirement prioritization includes considering the following smart
city factors: size and economic status of a city, and stakeholders’
communication about the city’s transformation process.
The size of a city impacts the smart city model that the city decides to
follow (Ahvenniemi et al., 2017; Alizadeh, 2017; Borsekova et al., 2018;
Esposito et al., 2021). Big cities care more about return on investment,
while smaller cities are often more interested in discovering solutions for
urban development through smart city strategies. When discussing the
influence of different indicators on the development of smart cities, it is
difficult to identify how each indicator affects the results due to the
confluence of many influencing factors in large cities. Because of their
smaller size, small and medium-sized cities are less complex, and the
factors are relatively easier to determine, as are the relationships be­
tween these factors. Therefore, by combining factors such as innovative
capabilities and technological knowledge, small and medium-sized cit­
ies can become innovative rapidly, which can be a reason that they,
according to the literature, show a better performance than large cities
(Tomor et al., 2021; Blanck & Ribeiro, 2021; Borsekova et al., 2018;
Ullah et al., 2021).
A city’s economic status and pillar industries can also influence the
strategy of smart city transformation (Dameri et al., 2019; Akande et al.,
2020; Bastidas et al.,2022; Yigitcanlar et al., 2022). In some
long-standing industrial and trade areas such as Edinburgh and Toronto
for example, smart city strategies are developed to specifically update
the area towards high-tech business (Esposito et al., 2021). In some
other cities that are already more tech advanced, however, e.g., Barce­
lona and London, authorities formulate smart city strategies that are
centered around urban services and technological solutions to control
6
Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112
pollution to improve the quality of citizens’ daily life and establish
community identity (Angelidou, 2015). And, in Wallonia-Belgium pol­
icymakers prioritize business services and technology-driven develop­
ment in their smart city initiatives and frame the transformation of cities
into smart cities as the creation of a competitive economic advantage
through technological leadership (Wataya & Shaw, 2019; Lam & Yang,
2020; Esposito et al., 2021).
At the same time, there is also a barrier to determining a proper
definition of smart city goals. For national-level governments, it is
difficult to obtain a macro consensus on the interpretation of smart
cities’ goals in line with national conditions and in the face of different
urban resources and development needs (Angelidou, 2014). As a result,
and also due to consequential resource and capacity constraints, the
strategies that local governments propose lack long-term vision and
innovation in relation to cities (Angelidou, 2014; Madsen, 2018). Facing
the above issues, the key challenge in this stage is to understand and
define the fundamental goal of developing a smart city, which is ach­
ieved by stakeholder engagement in agenda-setting for smart city
transformation. The adequacy of communication among lead stakeholders
is essential, which can be tackled by establishing online communication
platforms where information and opinions can be shared among gov­
ernments, firms, and communities (Beretta, 2018; Monteiro et al.,
2018).
(2) Smart city technology innovation
The ongoing evolution and revolution of technology is seen as the
direct driving force behind the formation of the smart city concept
Y. Dai et al.
(Kummitha, 2018; Nahiduzzaman et al., 2021). As one of the most
widely used types of information and communication technology (ICT),
the Internet of things (IoT) has been improving the cities’ digital system
(Leroux & Pupion, 2022). With emerging technologies integrated with
IoT, there are many possibilities of collecting, processing, and storing
data. Sensory devices are the core to build the digital connection of
things. Cloud-computing provides the platform for collecting and storing
data from different devices. For data processing, big data shows poten­
tial for higher efficiency of data management, which makes it possible
for stakeholders to make decisions based on huge amounts of updated
data (Ahad et al., 2020). And, artificial intelligence (AI)-based tech­
nologies, such as digital twins (which creates digital replications of
humans and things in the real world), enable forecasting and prediction
routines that can serve the smart city initiative (Ramu et al., 2022).
Moreover, facing issues of data safety caused by imperfections of the
traditional way that data is stored and managed on a central server,
blockchain can construct a decentralized architecture of data manage­
ment enabling a safer peer-to-peer exchange of data and information
(Bhushan et al., 2020).
The smart city technology innovation stage is identified in our
analysis as pivotal in the smart city transformation process. Based on the
analysis of the relevant publications, it became obvious that smart city
strategy outcomes are first and foremost associated with the available
innovative technology in cities and the cities’ abilities to implement
these. Sufficient technological innovations to choose from are a pre­
requisite for smart city strategies, although sometimes this is indirect
and has many other effects. Taking e-commerce as an example, the
emergence of this retail model is driven by the Internet technology
revolution, which in turn affects consumer behavior and puts forward
new demands on urban land use and mobility (Nahiduzzaman et al.,
2021).
During the smart city technology innovation stage, where the smart
city strategy is further outlined, authorities connect with research in­
stitutions, technical consultants, and potential suppliers to understand
how technological solutions can be used to achieve the set goals of
smart-associated outcomes (Grimaldi & Fernandez, 2017). There are
four factors that stakeholders should be aware of: data management,
residents’ knowledge, budget, and potential environmental damage.
This stage is usually dominated by the technological considerations
and experts. For example, in the case of Belgium, the responsibility for
implementing the smart city strategy was assigned to the government’s
ICT manager (Simonofski et al., 2019). The advantage of this arrange­
ment is that when technical solutions are discussed, the technical leaders
focus more on serving citizens in technologically innovative ways (Wu
et al., 2018). The downside is that this may bring urban development
fully back to technology-oriented development, and under-estimates the
socie(ta)l aspects and requests such as usability, privacy and security,
which are sub-topics of data management (Huston et al., 2015; Masik
et al., 2021).
Citizens engaged in the smart city technology innovation stage as co-
creators of technological solutions can provide simple and easy-to-
operate solutions to some of the mentioned soci(et)al needs (Jiang
et al., 2021; Nunes et al., 2021). Nevertheless, when they act as users of
innovative smart city technology, there are some issues regarding their
acceptance of for example smart digital devices. Inevitably, due to resi­
dents’ different knowledge about smart digital devices, a digital divide
between people with much and little knowledge may appear. It thus re­
quires techno-social experts to plan for the diffusion of knowledge among
citizens and to design a system with user-friendliness in mind (Wu et al.,
2018; Braun et al., 2018). In this smart city technology innovation stage,
universities play several critical roles, while being a source of knowledge,
the supplier of academically trained professional personnel, the incu­
bator of innovative smart technology, and a catalyst in the relationship
between governments and firms (Ferraris et al., 2020).
This stage also has a special focus on budget. Since equipment up­
grades and follow-up maintenance will add to the cost of smart city
7
Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112
transformation, it needs to be planned according to the budget. The
interoperability of different devices, the operation and maintenance,
and data transfer during the transition from the current city system to
the smart city system determines the system’s compatibility. Moreover,
massive real-time data needs to be analyzed and stored, which requires
data management and standardization. Security is also essential in dis­
cussions about technology integration. The system’s security is essential
in building trust among stakeholders and broad acceptance of the smart
city concept (Braun et al., 2018; Wataya & Shaw, 2019; Bhushan et al.,
2020).
It is of paramount importance to connect all smart devices to form a
manageable network of equipment and the data it generates (Marrone &
Hammerle, 2018). Devices in smart cities are embedded with sensors,
which enable physical devices, services, and management to be inte­
grated through cyber-physical systems. Using tools such as cloud
computing, ICT, and network configuration management, a network
that can be seamlessly connected is built. Based on this network, data is
processed, managed, and analyzed with the help of data management
software (Contreras & Platania, 2019; Braun et al., 2018; Ahad et al.,
2020).
While planning to replace existing equipment and build a new
technology-based smart city, environmental damage is imminent. The
lack of standard procedures makes it often difficult to dispose of obsolete
equipment. Still, many citizens are not aware of the hazards for nature
by throwing away electronic waste, such as batteries in landfills, open
spaces, and oceans (Ahad et al., 2020; Aina et al., 2019). Deciding on
which smart technology to use implies that well-considered decisions
are also made about the sustainability technology and criteria that will
be used to avert environmental damage. The evolving technology in the
infrastructure realizes the communication within the infrastructure and
the impact on the environment. By sharing the information and using
innovative communication tools, the financial and environmental
feasibility of the infrastructure can also be assessed (Ramirez et al.,
2021; Broo et al., 2021).
(3) Smart city strategy development
The smart city strategy development stage is characterized by the
integrated development of a smart city strategy in the context of a
certain city. In this stage, and opposite to the smart city goal definition
stage, city-specific economic, environmental, and soci(et)ally smart-
associated outcomes are agreed upon by various lead stakeholders to
help achieve the defined smart city as elaborated in the definition stage.
The involvement of stakeholders varies per city. The local government
plays the role of the driver of strategic initiatives, but the number of
other stakeholders involved and their mutual collaboration in this stage
varies. Civic engagement, for instance, is said to add to a more balanced
development of specific smart city strategies (Macke et al., 2018), and
cities such as Vienna always consider it in this stage (Csukás & Szabó,
2021). However, the integration of civic opinions representing different
stakeholders requires more time and effort, and often, local governments
do not integrate citizens’ opinions in the process of strategy develop­
ment toward smart city transformation (Nicolas et al., 2020; Qayyum
et al., 2021; Nicolas et al., 2021). The formation of smart city gover­
nance and the degree of technology integrated are two main factors that
impact the implementation of this stage’s key initiatives.
This third stage is also characterized by the formation of smart city
governance (Camboim et al., 2019; Belanche et al., 2016; Silva et al.,
2018). There are three key elements of smart city governance: soci(et)al
goals, collaborations, and technologies. In this five-stage framework,
based on the soci(et)al goals set in the smart city goal definition stage
and the technologies integrated in the smart city technology innovation
stage, smart city governance is formed in this smart city strategy
development stage to determine which groups of stakeholders to engage
with, and to encourage their coordination of the smart city initiative
Y. Dai et al.
(Abu-Rayash & Dincer, 2021; Parmentola et al., 2022). Guided by
defined and agreed upon smart city governance, governments, the pri­
vate sector, and the community come to terms with commitments to
smart city ambitions, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions and
non-renewable energy consumption (Siemens & Tittenberger 2009).
Technology is said to be flexibly integrated into smart city governance,
which should be recognized as a tool to improve stakeholder engage­
ment for achieving the goals of the local smart city strategy (Soyata
et al., 2019). For example, with a focus on the environmental aspect of
smart-associated outcomes, ICT applications can provide a platform for
stakeholders to participate and be engaged in the smart city trans­
formation process (Angelidou, 2017). The requirement of an integrated
approach for developing the smart city strategy is raised due to, for
example, the significant positive impact of green technologies and sus­
tainable energy on the environment, as well as on local society (Neirotti
et al., 2014; Angelidou, 2015; Fernandez-Anez et al., 2018; Ahad et al.,
2020). However, issues can be caused by blind trust in technology,
which means there is a belief that every single problem can be solved by
a certain technology. Technology thus should be engaged in governance
with a cautious attitude rather than being seen as the alternative to it
(Ahad et al., 2020; Secinaro et al., 2021).
(4) Smart city plan implementation
While the previous three stages have a strategic focus, the smart city
plan implementation stage is at the project-level. The local smart city
strategy, developed in the previous strategy development stage, is first
chunked into several objectives that can be implemented by various
projects (Camboim et al., 2019). The smart city plan implementation
stage contains three periods of the life cycle of a project, which is
planning, development, and delivery. Stakeholders consider two factors,
i.e., resources and the type of projects, when making decisions. Gener­
ally, each smart city project has only one or a few specific objectives
(Haarstad & Wathne, 2019). Therefore, the project team needs to plan
based on the strategy and available resources and implement the plan to
achieve the desired objectives (Zuzul, 2019).
The complexities of implementation procedures vary between
different types of projects. Literature identifies two specific types of smart
city projects: brownfield and greenfield projects. Brownfield projects are
carried out in existing cities and widely adopted by cities undergoing a
smart city transformation. In most cases, brownfield projects focus on
one explicit goal. For example, Ottawa’s (Canada) “Smart Capital”
project targets the enhancement of engaging stakeholders in internet
data usage (Albino et al., 2015). There are also some brownfield projects
like “22@ district” in Barcelona, whose target is revitalizing a
post-industrial district (Camboim et al., 2019). The role played by the
municipality is crucial for its success, providing financial investment
and policy support with the right to manage the project and make de­
cisions directly. Compared to greenfield projects, which will be dis­
cussed in the next paragraph, brownfield projects are easier to deliver
for the clear responsibilities of the decision-maker and other stake­
holders (Angelidou, 2017; Dameri et al., 2019).
Greenfield projects refer to creating a completely new district
geographically close to a large city, such as the “Songdo district” in
South Korea and “PlanIT Valley” in Portugal (Mattoni et al., 2015;
Carvalho, 2015; Angelidou, 2017). The key to this niche-based experi­
mentation is that it facilitates the process of learning and social
embedding. In greenfield projects, also called smart-city experiments, a
complete set of facility systems embedded with new technologies is used
to test the feasibility of the innovative systems and the direction of
further adjustments (Carvalho, 2015). Social embedding consists of
three aspects, which are networks of stakeholders that support
continued social support for smart city technology, a match of rules,
standards, facilities, and business models with smart city technology,
and legitimation of new smart city solutions and visions to society. In
8
Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112
terms of social embedding, greenfield projects can make local policy­
makers aware of the need for new technological smart city solutions
ahead of market incentives (Angelidou, 2014). In consecutive smart city
projects, new services and business models that are beyond the standard
rules and practices are being explored and experimented, and such ex­
periments can attract more academic, professional and international
attention, possibly culminating in more opportunities and funding
(Duvier et al., 2018; Sodiq et al., 2019).
Despite the many advantages of greenfield projects, some limitations
and contradictions are inevitable considering that private firms play the
vital role of technology champions and service providers. The first
limitation is that the technology companies are attracted for a short
period of time to assist with the transformation process, and ultimately it
becomes difficult to form a robust innovation ecosystem through insti­
tutionalized local knowledge sharing which requires long-term and
large-scale inter-regional exchanges and experience accumulation. A
second limitation is that the dominance of ICT companies as knowledge
producers, and their associated competitive strategies, often hinders the
possibility of knowledge sharing among and learning by other players in
the region (Bunders & Varró, 2019; Carvalho, 2015). Moreover, because
greenfield projects are separated from the real-life city and its context, it
is difficult to facilitate knowledge flow from greenfield projects to
brownfield projects, and to generalize from experiments to common
practice. In the “Songdo district” in South Korea, for example, the
large-scale urban smart city construction took a long time, from the
initial planning phase to final delivery. Financial, social, and political
support dwindled in a situation where large investments did not see
immediate returns in the short term (Carvalho, 2015).
The impact of the community is another significant feature of this
stage. During the implementation of smart city projects, communities
play an essential role, especially minorities. Through communication
activities such as organizing local round tables and gatherings, the
establishment of citizens’ sense of belonging and their acceptance of
future smart cities can further support the smartification of cities (Par­
mentola et al., 2022; Bhushan et al., 2020). The effect of inhabitants in
the community is significant. Siemens and Tittenberger (2009) argue that
technological change increasingly comes from the commitment to
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and non-renewable energy con­
sumption by inhabitants and private firms. The accumulation of personal
and organizational behaviours has huge implications beyond policies,
which can also determine the extent of the city’s targeted smartness.
(5) Smart city plan evaluation
The actual process of developing smart cities does not end with stage
five, smart city plan evaluation. The reality is that the progress and
performance of projects in a smart city endeavor varies, and the cities’
overall economic, environmental and soci(et)al smart-associated
achievements may not reach the strategic targets set (Zuzul, 2019;
D’Amico et al., 2020; Shamsuzzoha et al., 2021). Therefore, the smart
city plan evaluation stage enables different levels of government to
evaluate the performance of the various projects in the smart city pro­
gram, review the results of the past four stages, and analyze the
smart-associated outcomes (Huovila et al., 2019).
Stakeholders adopt different tools and models to evaluate the smart
city performance and the performance of smart city projects (Lazaroiu &
Roscia, 2012; Ahvenniemi et al., 2017; Shmelev & Shmeleva, 2019;
Nunes et al., 2021). For example, waste collection and disposal data are
collected through real-time and/or for longitudinal analysis (Angelidou,
2017). The limitation of applying evaluation tools and models is that the
complexity of cities makes their specific situations completely different,
and each city has to build its evaluation structure in different periods
(Mora et al., 2019b).
The transition to a smart city is a multi-year or even decades-long
process in which social and technological developments are constantly
Y. Dai et al.
changing. Therefore, after evaluating the implementation results of
smart city projects, relevant authorities and other stakeholders need to
re-examine whether the smart city development strategies set in the past
are still applicable (Angelidou, 2017).
4. Discussion
4.1. Summary of results
Facing the challenges brought by urbanization, the push towards
smart city transformation is becoming one of the key goals of many
modern cities. However, although significant efforts have been made to
implement smart city projects, the ambiguous transformation process
hindered the development of more generic theories and applications in
practice that focus on developmental processes concerning stakeholder
and technology interactions. Adopting a systematic review study of 125
articles, this research synthesizes a five-stage process framework of
smart city transformation and identifies that the main interacting
stakeholders in the process of smart city transformation are the public
sector, private firms, and the community. Furthermore, this research
Fig. 4. Mediation effect of technology
9
Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112
shows how stakeholder roles vary in each stage and how the relationship
among the stakeholders forms throughout the different stages in
different ways to impact the transformation and efficiency of smart
cities, especially regarding economic, environmental, and soci(et)al
smart-associated outcomes (see Fig. 3).
4.2. Mediating effect of smart city technology
From the five-stage framework, there are several main implications
for smart city transformation. First, as presented in Fig. 4, technology
mediates the relationship between the stakeholder interactions, initia­
tives and expected economic, environmental, and soci(et)al smart-
associated outcomes of each stage(Alawadhi et al., 2012; Liang et al.,
2018; Dirks & Keeling, 2009).
The utilization of new technologies is seen as one of the crucial
conditions for establishing and developing smart cities (Paroutis et al.,
2014; Angelidou, 2015; Sokolov et al., 2019; van den Buuse & Kolk,
2019). Blasi et al. (2022) argue that technology is adopted as an effective
management practice to enhance efficiency in the smart city trans­
formation process. Technology also mediates the process of developing
Y. Dai et al.
relationships among different groups of stakeholders (Cedillo-Elias
et al., 2018; Stratigea et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2018). For instance, in the
first stage, structuring the communication platform that engages
stakeholders requires technological support to achieve the expected
outcome which aims at getting a comprehensive understanding of how a
smart city should be interpreted in its context. The level of technological
knowledge, among other things, is an essential factor in the urban
context in determining smart city strategies (Esposito et al., 2021).
Technology, for example in the form of websites and ICT applications,
also becomes critical in the third stage, the smart city strategy devel­
opment stage, particularly in relation to promoting and fostering
stakeholder engagement.
The results also indicate that governments, firms, citizens, commu­
nities, and research institutions take on roles of lead stakeholders in the
smart city transformation process, and that technology is associated
with their role. The public sector’s roles are for example distinguished
Fig. 5. Four core scenarios for the smart city transformation process
10
Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112
by stage. The local government takes the lead at the smart city strategy
development stage engaging with technology for promotion and plays
the driving role with other relevant authorities (mostly national gov­
ernments) in the smart city plan evaluation stage using technology to
understand the smart city transformation outcomes. In the other three
stages, local governments influence smart city development as one of the
lead stakeholders. Furthermore, relevant authorities are drivers in the
smart city goal definition stage and the smart city plan evaluation stage,
while they participate as lead stakeholders in the smart city technology
innovation stage. Looking at the role of firms, it can be said that firms
also have crucial roles during all five stages of the smart city trans­
formation process. Especially for the smart city technology innovation
stage, private firms as technology suppliers play a driving role, and in
the other four stages, they are still tightly engaged as lead stakeholders.
Y. Dai et al.
4.3. Four core scenarios for the smart city transformation process
Due to, amongst others, the mediating role of technology, the five
stages of smart city transformation cannot be considered linear in terms
of order or sequence. This sequence in the framework is an ideal-typical
sequence, which rarely occurs in practice, but, still, gives an insight into
how a productive, effective, and efficient smart city transformation
process could develop and be managed over time, in an ideal-typical
mode. In practice, scenarios unfold in which, depending on the setting
(socioeconomic and political), a process of successive stages is chosen
and implemented through trial-and-error that differs from the sequence
in the framework.
Based on the ideal-typical presentation in Figs. 3 and 4, this research
explores and shows the four core scenarios of the five-stage process
framework for smart city transformation under the mediating role of
technology. These core scenarios are visualized in Fig. 5.
4.3.1. Scenario a: Spiralling up
This is an ideal-typical scenario for the transformation process of
smart cities, in which the city follows up on the smart city goal that it has
set by adopting a collection of smart city technologies, develops a
strategy to apply these technologies in and throughout the city, imple­
ments the technologies in close collaboration with all stakeholders,
evaluates the results and starts a new ideal-typical trajectory of stage 1
to 2 to 3 to 4 to 5, and onwards. The smart-associated outcomes of the
city are achieved during the first four stages, which require that the
overall performance of smart city projects meet the expected results.
This scenario is further characterized by the fact that the expected
outcomes of a local smart city strategy are reasonably divided into a
series of project goals. After the strategic plan evaluation stage, new
visions of what the smart city should be like in the national and regional
context are redefined in a revisited version of the smart city goal defi­
nition stage, and more potential technological solutions are discussed
(Huston et al, 2015; Almirall et al., 2016).
4.3.2. Scenario b: Downward repetition
Under this scenario, the development of smart cities fails. This failure
is consequentially motivated by misjudgments and improper decision-
making by stakeholders in the first three stages. For example, the defi­
nition of the smart city goal might not match the needs of both the city
and stakeholders, or, smart city technological solutions are too ambi­
tious to be realized, or, it is too demanding for stakeholders to achieve
consensus on the smart city strategy, either of which leads the following
steps to a too complex and ambiguous direction. Failure in these three
stages forms the root cause for failure in the smart city plan imple­
mentation stage of the process, leading to repeated failing projects and
sub-projects in this stage, with the smart city program slipping further
and further downward (e.g., Zuzul, 2019).
4.3.3. Scenario c: Corrective feedback
The corrective feedback scenario partly resembles the downward
repetition scenario, but corrects mistakes and learns from it instead of
persisting in a downward repetitive path. Again, there are some mis­
judgments in the first three stages. The difference, however, is that after
several projects’ failure in the smart city plan implementation stage, the
decision-making team of the city learns from this, and decides to restart
the entire process from the smart city goal definition stage. Another
example can be that due to failed projects or political issues, the
composition of the decision-making team undergoes changes, and de­
cides to revisit the smart city goal definition stage (Bunders & Varró,
2019).
4.3.4. Scenario d: Upward feedback
Compared to the corrective feedback scenario, this upward feedback
scenario requires the different levels of decision-making authorities to
be agile and can identify the stage at which the core problem of failure or
11
Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112
a lack of results lies. Rather than restarting from the smart city goal
definition stage, under the upward feedback scenario, when the au­
thorities learn from some misunderstandings at a certain past stage, they
will go back to this stage and make adjustments in a timely manner to go
further upward in terms of smart city goals and results. This scenario is
also ideal-typical because there is high complexity and uncertainty in a
practical situation, causing biased and incomplete decision-making, and
a lag between problem awareness, problem analysis and problem-
solving. Also, it relies on establishing sensible governance and the
relationship of trust between the main influential stakeholders that are
involved (Leroux & Pupion, 2022).
4.4. Contributions, limitations and avenues for further research
Literature on smart cities is abundant and many scholars have looked
for ways to try to understand how to foster and speed up smart city
development (e.g., Letaifa, 2015; Angelidou, 2015; Musiolik et al.,
2020a). As literature shows, technological development is a cornerstone
of the smart city transformation process (Allam & Dhunny, 2019), yet
stakeholders also play a crucial role in enabling technology to develop
the smartness of and in cities (Argento et al., 2020). Recent research has
focused on sustainability in relation to smart city development
(Obringer & Nateghi, 2021) and how stakeholders can build in and work
with sustainable development goals in mind when advancing towards
this ‘‘moving’’ target. Scholars have addressed stakeholder roles, pat­
terns of engagement and their interaction with sustainability and tech­
nology for achieving smart city objectives, yet many challenges
regarding smart city transformation remain (Mondschein et al., 2021;
Obringer & Nateghi, 2021). One of the challenges is related to the smart
city initiatives and their tailoring to the size, location and scope of the
development of cities. Namely cities are in different developmental
stages, also with respect to technology, sustainability, and socioeco­
nomic and political regimes. Although it might be clear which stake­
holders are relevant and which technology is crucial in transforming
ordinary cities into smart cities, it remains a challenge to assess how
cities of different sizes and developmental levels achieve such smart city
transformations (Borsekova et al., 2018; Ang-Tan & Ang, 2022).
This research leveraged seminal work on smart cities and conducted
a systematic literature review of 125 articles to develop a generic
framework, visualizing and describing a five-stage smart city trans­
formation process. The process aspect is emphasized here as the smart
city transformation involves constant reiteration, hence the elaboration
and incorporation of a feedback loop in the framework in Fig. 3 and its
effect exemplified in four developmental scenarios. This research de­
scribes the roles and interactions of driving and leading stakeholders,
smart city factors and smart city technology in five stages of a process
framework and via four possible scenarios that may flow from stake­
holders that go through these stages, either ideal-typical or via trial-and-
error. Furthermore, the findings of this research can assist relevant au­
thorities and city officials driving smart city transformation in locating
at which stage of development their city is situated, and how can they
leverage the knowledge of stakeholders, develop or integrate relevant
technology, and consider smart city factors per stage to optimize their
smart city objectives and scenarios.
In addition to these contributions, the study also experiences some
limitations that would lead to further exploration in subsequent research
studies. With respect to the methodology, the selection criteria excluded
articles published in journals with a JIF lower than 4, conference pro­
ceedings, and book chapters, which may include more details of local
smart city strategies. This is a standard and often preferred procedure
when conducting a systematic literature review for framework devel­
opment (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009). However, since the smart city is an
emerging area and field of research, the excluded articles, despite their
means and language of publication, could have added additional con­
tributions to this paper. The second methodological limitation is
regarding the topic selection. When conducting systematic literature
Y. Dai et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112

reviews, it is a standard procedure to focus on one topic (Denyer &
Tranfield, 2009). In this study that was the smart city, yet, and consid­
ering that the smart city and smart city transformation has impact also
for other fields, e.g., for urban transformation, it calls for further syn­
thesis research including the focus beyond one singular topic. This
would make the research more complex, but it could also enhance
robustness. Third, as already mentioned, the developed framework and
associated scenarios in this study focus on the role and interaction of
stakeholders and technology, and other essential influencing smart city
factors such as ’place’ and ’time’ of the smart city transformation are not
central in this study. The analytical validity of the framework is there­
fore limited and does not provide insights into, for example, differences
in smart city transformations in various provinces, countries, and con­
tinents, nor in different periods. Follow-up research can include these
two factors to better understand the place- and time-bound aspects of
smart city transformation processes. In general, it can be noted that the
framework developed in this study needs follow-up studies to test,
evaluate, and increase its analytical validity in various contexts.
The growing number of people living in cities, the great pressure on
the functioning of cities, and the impact that these have on the pros­
perity and well-being of the earth, humans, animals, and nature make
smart city transformation an important theme, strategy and policy. This
research provides first insights into how this transformation can be
organized and brings to the fore the much-needed development on the
topic to foster its further bloom.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.

Appendix A: Search strings applied to databases

Databases Smart cities Factors Number of

results

Web of Topic: ((smart city) OR (smart cities)) AND Topic: (strateg* OR 6237
Science management* OR factor* OR indicator* OR driver*)
ScienceDirect Title, abstract or author-specified keywords: ((smart Title, abstract or author-specified keywords: (strategy OR strategies 1586
city) OR (smart cities)) management OR factor OR indicator OR driver)

Appendix B: Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Criteria Aims Justification

Inclusion Publications since 2007
Papers on urban development, policy making,
collaborative governance, sustainability,
innovation, etc., from all over the world
Exclusion Articles in journals in unrelated areas
Articles in journals rated lower than Q2 in SJR
2020 (or conference publications)
Articles in journals with the Journal Impact
Factor (JIF) (2021) lower than 4
Papers talking about the design and optimization
of an algorithm, digital applications, and
computing
To capture all relevant knowledge on the topic
To ensure that all potentially relevant areas are
included as long as they focus on the smart city
management
To ensure the articles that are selected are related to the
development of smart cities and of high, peer-reviewed
quality
To make sure that the reviewed articles can provide
information on the process of transforming towards
smart cities and not only the technical tools
The number of publications in this field started to
significantly increase from 2007
Jointly determined based on the main research question
and review questions
The research content of those does not intersect with the
article’s research goal
Although the digital tools and infrastructures are
affected by the smart city transformation, inferences
from one to the other would be unreliable

Appendix C: List of reviewed articles

No Author (Year) Title Type Location Main Contribution Limitation

1 Abu-Rayash and
Dincer (2021)
2 Abusaada and
Elshater (2021)
Development of integrated
sustainability performance
indicators for better
management of smart cities
Competitiveness,
distinctiveness and singularity
in urban design: A systematic
review and framework for
smart cities
Modelling Abuja, Addis Ababa,
Amman, Doha, Halifax,
Hameenlinna, Istanbul,
Kuala Lampur, Lima,
London, Montreal,
Moscow, New York,
Osaka, Sydney, Toronto,
Tunis, and Vancouver
Systematic / Clarifies four groups of principles
literature
review
Develops a model for smartness
evaluation of cities by assessing 8
domains including environment,
economy, energy, society,
governance, infrastructure,
transportation, and pandemic
resiliency
that smart cities should follow and
four reasons for desiring singularity
for smart cities: Enhancing the ideas
of smart urban development,
The evaluation model
only focuses on the
performance of cities and
the correlation between
different indicators at a
certain time point, but
lacks discussion on the
dynamic development
process and the impact of
each city’s context on
such performance
The focus is mostly on one
aspect, the singularity of
smart cities, with the
ignorance of the holistic
view of smart city
(continued on next page)

12
Y. Dai et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112

(continued )
No Author (Year) Title Type Location Main Contribution Limitation

strengthening the technological, development; There is a

3 Adapa (2018)
4 Ahad et al. (2020)
5 Ahvenniemi et al.
(2017)
6 Ahvenniemi and
Huovila (2021)
7 Aina et al. (2019)
8 Akande et al.
(2020)
9 Akande et al.
(2019)
Indian smart cities and cleaner
production initiatives -
Integrated framework and
recommendations
Enabling technologies and
sustainable smart cities
What are the differences
between sustainable and smart
cities?
How do cities promote urban
sustainability and smartness?
An evaluation of the city
strategies of six largest Finnish
cities
Top-down sustainable urban
development? Urban
governance transformation in
Saudi Arabia
Understanding the sharing
economy and its implication
on sustainability in smart
cities
The Lisbon ranking for smart
sustainable cities in Europe
respecting the relationship between
people and places and focusing on
the concept of smart cities with smart
citizens in mind
Document India Synthesizes an integrated framework
analysis of smart cities and cleaner
production in the Indian context and
summarized the drivers, the
challenges and the recommendations
of smart city development
Conceptual / Identifies a comprehensive roadmap
for achieving a smart city ecosystem
covering its major aspects and
entities and highlights the best
practices that can be adopted by the
various stakeholders including
governments, users, manufacturers,
retailers and designers for the
effective implementation of smart
city projects with a focus on
technologies and their roles in the
development of smart cities
Modelling / Observes the large gap between
smart city framework (that focuses
on social and economic aspects) and
sustainable city framework (that
includes more environmental
indicators) and recommends that the
assessment of smart city performance
should contain the impact indicators
to measure the contribution to the
economic, environmental and social
sustainability of smart cities
Content Helsinki, Espoo, Categorizes the goals of smart city
analysis Tampere, Vantaa, Oulu, strategies according to 12 sectors,
and Turku three sustainability dimensions and
five identified smartness aspects;
Concludes that smartness goals are
not extensively addressed in the
strategies although all the studied
cities have declared their goals to be
smart for example by participating in
the 6aika network
Case study Saudi Arabia Concludes that in order to provide
good sustainable institutionalized
urban government, a framework of
laws and administrative rules
combined with strategic
environmental assessment is
necessary; The findings might be
instructive for people working in
comparable political environments,
particularly in developing nations
Systematic / Identifies attitude as playing the most
literature important role in predicting intention
review & to share, suggesting that city councils
Meta-analysis and governments should pay
particular attention to strategies that
influence the positive predisposition
of citizens towards planet Earth and
life on it in their quest to make cities
smart and sustainable
Survey Europe Evaluates the smartness and
sustainability of European capital
cities using a set of metrics using a
methodology suggested by UNECE-
ITU; Creates five homogeneous
groups of indicators, using variance
as the selection criterion to choose
representative indicators for each
group, and then uses principal
lack of descriptive details
of the linkages between
citizens’ feelings and/or
behaviours and a certain
place
The framework can be
only applied to the
development of Indian
smart cities; The practical
implications of the
framework are uncertain
due to the lack of
quantitative analysis
This research does not
provide details about the
process that how
technologies are
integrated into the
initiatives for reaching the
targets of every step in the
roadmap
Attention is barely paid on
differences of
development process
between smart cities and
sustainable cities, which
may be significant due to
the different degrees of
technical intervention
There is a lack of the
consideration of urban
heterogeneity
Due to the context of
highly centralized policy-
making process in Saudi,
this study neglects the
perspective of technology
firms and the view of
communities and citizens,
and how the above
indicators change with the
urban governance
transformation
The research does not
discuss that how and to
what extent the identified
best predictors can
influence the
sustainability
development of smart
cities
The focus is on the
synthesizing of various
indicators to generate an
evaluation index adapting
to the context of the EU,
which does not consider
the different degrees of
cities in the EU (which
means the threshold of
(continued on next page)

13
Y. Dai et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112

(continued )
No Author (Year) Title Type Location Main Contribution Limitation

component analysis to the selected performance should not

indicators to produce a composite be the same), although
index from which the ranking is they are all capitals
derived
10 Albino et al. (2015) Smart Cities: Definitions, Literature / Clarifies the meaning of the word The structure of smart
Dimensions, Performance, and review smart in the context of cities, the cities provided in this
Initiatives main dimensions and elements study lacks the
characterizing a smart city, how a development process, the
smart city performs compared to a relationship between
traditional city, performance dimensions and the
measures and initiatives impact of urban
heterogeneity, which
makes it hard to apply in
practice
11 Alizadeh (2017) An investigation of IBM’s Survey / Concludes that in the cities The impact of the context
Smarter Cites Challenge: What participating IBM’s Smarter Cities and other stakeholders on
do participating cities want? Challenge, the role of local the local government’s
governments, is seen as the host view and the
organizations, reaching for and collaboration with IBM is
collaborating with the global digital ignored
firms; Shows that over 75 % of all
participating cities and over 84 % of
all mid–sized participating cities
focused on one topic only in their
work with IBM
12 Almirall et al. Smart Cities at the Crossroads: Survey / Structures the discussion on three The focus on the role of
(2016) NEW TENSIONS IN CITY main areas: new governance models technology limits the
TRANSFORMATION for Smart Cities, how to spur growth interpretation of smart
and renewal, and the sharing city concept in this study
economy—both commons and
market based
13 Angelidou (2017) The Role of Smart City Survey Amsterdam, Barcelona, Identifies what the characteristics of There is a lack of
Characteristics in the Plans of London, PlanIT Valley, smart cities are and evaluates discussion about the
Fifteen Cities Stockholm, Cyberjaya, whether and in what way these impact of different
Singapore, King characteristics are present in the contexts on the smart city
Abdullah Economic smart city plans of 15 cities; Clarifies characteristics
City, Masdar, Skolkovo, the smart city strategies collected
Songdo, Chicago, New from previous case studies and
York, Rio de Janeiro,
and Konza
14 Angelidou (2015) Smart cities: A conjuncture of Literature Barcelona and London Summarizes the shaping forces of the The dynamic process of
four forces review & Case ‘smart city’ conception and the the four forces influencing
study underlying principles of what it each other should have
means to be ’smart’ in an urban been paid more attention
context; Yields conclusions about and discussed based on
strategic planning for the the context of a certain
development of smart cities city or region
15 Angelidou (2014) Smart city policies: A spatial Literature Malta, New York City, Illustrates four strategic choices This study does not
approach review & Case Songdo IBD, (National vs Local strategies; consider the overlapping
study Amsterdam, Rio de Strategies for new vs existing cities; between different
Janeiro, Barcelona, Hard vs Soft infrastructure-oriented strategic choices, which
Singapore, and strategies; Sector-based vs may be more common in
Thessaloniki Geographically-based strategies) and practice
each choice’s advantages &
disadvantages; Presents
recommendations for the
development of smart cities
16 Ardito et al. (2019) The role of universities in the Case study Turin, Genoa, Milan, Reveals that the roles played by The types of knowledge
knowledge management of Trento, Manchester, universities: knowledge exchanged between
smart city projects London, Birmingham, intermediaries, knowledge partners have been
Chicago, Boston, gatekeepers, knowledge providers, neglected
Barcelona, La Coruna, and knowledge evaluators; Identifies
Mons, and Madrid that how universities manage
different knowledge management
governance issues
17 Argento et al. Governmentality and Case study Helsinki Addresses the benefits and The results are limited to a
(2020) performance for the smart city criticalities confronting a smart city single smart city
that introduces new performance
measurement systems as a
technology of government; Offers a
critical understanding of the role of
accounting in the smart city
18 Attoh (2019) We’re building their data: Survey Washington, DC Examines the labor conditions There is a lack of holistic
Labor, alienation, and idiocy argued are central to the production view of smart city
in the smart city of Uber’s smart data; Suggests that development due to the
the experience of Uber drivers offers focus on the technology
(continued on next page)

14
Y. Dai et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112

(continued )
No Author (Year) Title Type Location Main Contribution Limitation

us a window into the type of smart aspect and regarding

19 Baibarac-Duignan Controversing the datafied
and de Lange smart city: Conceptualising a
(2021) ’making-controversial’
approach to civic engagement
20 Bastidas et al. Concepts for Modeling Smart
(2021) Cities An ArchiMate Extension
21 Battarra et al. Planning in the era of
(2016) Information and
Communication Technologies.
Discussing the label: Smart in
South-European cities with
environmental and socio-
economic challenges
22 Belanche et al. City attachment and use of
(2016) urban services: Benefits for
smart cities
23 Letaifa (2015) How to strategize smart cities:
Revealing the SMART model
24 Beretta (2018) The social effects of eco-
innovations in Italian smart
cities
25 Bhushan et al. Blockchain for smart cities: A
(2020) review of architectures,
integration trends and future
research directions
26 Blanck and Ribeiro Smart cities financing system:
(2021) An empirical modelling from
the European context
27 Borsekova et al. Functionality between the size
(2018) and indicators of smart cities:
A research challenge with
policy implications
28 Braun et al. (2018) Security and privacy
challenges in smart cities
city on offer
Conceptual & Cities of the Netherlands Proposes a controversing framework
Case study composed of three main dimensions,
re-contextualization, meaning
making and agency, which allows to
address key challenges posed by the
datafication of everyday human
activities and the implications for
civic engagement
Literature Netanya Clarifies the concepts for modeling
review & Case city services and underlying
study information systems which are added
to the Enterprise Architecture
metamodel, which is demonstrated in
a real-world case and validated by
Smart City domain experts
Case study Reggio Calabria, Identifies the two-fold use of
Catania, and Palermo technologies for cities: on one side,
technocracy; on another side,
technologies as supports for urban
revitalization; Argues that the second
role of technology may improve
urban planning in challenging South-
European contexts
Case study Zaragoza Analyzes how users’ city attachment
levels and other personal
determinants contribute to their uses
of urban services; Reveals that
personal attitudes and needs,
possession of user cards, and
education levels have positive
influences on the use of urban
services
Literature Montreal, London, and Provides a methodological
review & Case Stockholm framework for the development of
study smart cities from the macro level to
the micro level
Survey Cities of Italy Highlights the risk of the
technological rut the European Union
is falling into; Illustrates the main
results of research carried out on the
smart cities in the Lombardy Region
regarding the social effects of eco-
innovations
Literature / Integrates the realm of blockchain
review and the field of smart city by
exploring and critically reviewing the
utility of blockchain in various smart
communities such as healthcare,
transportation, smart grid, supply
chain management, financial systems
and data center networks
Modelling / Reveals that there is a significant
effect of the innovation incubation
financing system on the evolution of
the Smart Urban Development level,
with this system being identified as
private sponsorship, as venture
capital sponsorship, and as
sponsorship by higher education
entities
Survey / Identifies two approaches in the
definition of smart cities,
technocratic approach and integrated
approach; Clarifies the correlation
between smart city indicators of the
performance and different sizes of
smart cities
Survey / Clarifies five smart city security and
privacy challenges and solutions to
those challenges and solutions to
smart city challenges are most
participators
The relationship and
change of three main
dimensions should have
been explained more in
detail; The impact of
context on the framework
is neglected
There is an ignorance of
citizens’ perspective
(which is crucial for the
inclusive decision-making
process) in this study
This study does not
consider the change of the
identified challenges and
the connection between
each other
The impact of city
attachment and use of
urban services on the
development of smart
cities should have been
discussed as a dynamic
process, which is seen as
stationary
The change of
stakeholders’ roles in
different stages lacks
notice
This study does not
consider the perspective
of citizens, which is
crucial for the topic
Due to the technology-
targeted definition of
smart city in this article,
the exploration of the
connection between two
areas is limited and lacks
more perspectives of other
stakeholders, like those of
citizens or authorities
The relationship between
the innovation incubation
financing system and the
evolution of the smart city
urban development level
is not well explained due
to the lack of discussion
about the impact of other
factors and elements
The study only focuses on
the performance of smart
cities at a certain time
point, but it is a dynamic
process and the
development level of
smart cities should not
only be evaluated by such
performance
The connection between
the role of stakeholders
and the implementation of
solutions (especially for
(continued on next page)

15
Y. Dai et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112

(continued )
No Author (Year) Title Type Location Main Contribution Limitation

effective when they utilize a holistic that how to apply a

approach to security and privacy holistic approach) is
neglected
29 Broo et al. (2021) Built environment of Britain in Conceptual Cities of the UK Concludes with the identification of There are some
2040: Scenarios and strategies key strategies that can lead to the connections (e.g., the
sustainable development of the built stakeholder network)
environment sectors, outlining a between those four
number of actions that should be scenarios, which are not
combined with the path for recovery explained in this research
from Covid-19 and are based on
digital technology and a green
information economy that ensures a
future better for everyone in a digital
built Britain
30 Buallay et al. Sustainability reporting in Survey / Demonstrate that there is a positive The relationship between
(2021) smart cities: A significant relationship between the sustainability and the
multidimensional environmental, social, and firm’s performance should
performance measures governance (ESG) and operational not be related to the
performance (ROA), financial context, which is not
performance (ROE) discussed in this study
31 Bunders and Varró Problematizing data-driven Case study Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Shows that stakeholders do not only This study does not
(2019) urban practices: Insights from The Hague, Utrecht, and perceive practical challenges but are mention how
five Dutch ’smart cities’ Eindhoven widely aware of and are (partly) pro- stakeholders’ role change
actively engaging with perceived in different projects
normative-ethical and societal during the smart city
concerns, leading to different development
(sometimes inter-related)
technological, legal/political,
organizational, informative and
participative strategies
32 Bundgaard and City-wide scale-up of smart Literature Cities of North America, Shows two paths of city-wide scale- There is a lack of
Borrás (2021) city pilot projects: Governance review & Case Europe, and Asia up, which are termed as discussion about the
conditions study “bureaucratic tailoring” and “low- impact of five conditions’
uncertainty partnering” change on the outcome
33 Bakıcı et al. (2013) A smart city initiative: the case Case study Barcelona Proposes the main assets of Barcelona The dynamic process of
of Barcelona. Smart City initiative model and main redefining and adjusting
components of Barcelona’s smart city the smart city strategy of
strategy; Emphasizes the importance Barcelona is ignored
of public and private collaboration
34 Camboim et al. Driving elements to make Systematic Amsterdam, Barcelona, Identifies the driving elements of a The framework of two
(2019) cities smarter: Evidences from literature Lisbon, and Vienna smart city and an integrated steps and results should
European projects review & Case framework including two steps have been considered as a
study (smart strategies and smart projects) dynamic loop due to the
and results (smart performance) necessity of feedback and
redefining of smart
strategies
35 Care et al. (2018) Crowdfunding for the Case study Milan, Saluzzo, Taranto, Reveal a certain number of local This study does not
development of smart cities and Naples initiatives that have been funded mention the change of
through civic crowdfunding models such civic funding models
that offer opportunities for during the development
participation process of smart cities
36 Carvalho (2015) Smart cities from scratch? A Case study Songdo and PlanIT Proposes a socio-technical approach There is a lack of
socio-technical perspective Valley to analyze the contemporary discussion about the
development of smart-IT solutions perspective of other
and its promises to re-shape the stakeholders other than
functioning of cities; Suggests that authorities and
more than ‘technologizing the way technology firms and
out’ of current urban problems, a relevant issues of smart-IT
number of socio-technical processes solutions (e.g., data
have to unfold, so that new IT security)
solutions can effectively challenge
current regimes of urban provisions
37 Chen (2021) Application of environmental Modelling / Analyzes the smart city spatial There is a lack of
ecological strategy in smart planning of different cities and discussion about the
city space architecture regions under the influence of the impact and requirements
planning ecological environment; Reveals the of the smart city’s social
guiding role and development aspect
direction of the smart city spatial
architectural layout planning under
the ecological environment
38 Contreras and Economic and policy Modelling & London Propose a zero mean reverting model This study does not
Platania (2019) uncertainty in climate change Case study for greenhouse gas emissions to consider that how the
mitigation: The London Smart quantitatively analyze its consistency other elements impact the
City case scenario with the 2050 Zero Carbon objectives greenhouse gas emissions
from a holistic view
(continued on next page)

16
Y. Dai et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112

(continued )
No Author (Year) Title Type Location Main Contribution Limitation

39 Cowley and Smart city as anti-planning in
Caprotti (2019) the UK
40 Csukás and Szabó The many faces of the smart
(2021) city: Differing value
propositions in the activity
portfolios of nine cities
41 Bruni et al. (2017) Evaluation of cities’ smartness
by means of indicators for
small and medium cities and
communities: A methodology
for Northern Italy
42 Dameri et al. Understanding smart cities as
(2019) a glocal strategy: A
comparison between Italy and
China
43 D’Amico et al. Ecological indicators of smart
(2020) urban metabolism: A review of
the literature on international
standards
44 Duvier et al. (2018) Data quality and governance
in a UK social housing
initiative: Implications for
smart sustainable cities
45 Ekman et al. (2019) Exploring smart cities and
market transformations from a
service-dominant logic
perspective
46 Esposito et al. One size does not fit all:
(2021) Framing smart city policy
narratives within regional
socio-economic contexts in
Brussels and Wallonia
47 Fernandez-Anez Smart City implementation
et al. (2018) and discourses: An integrated
conceptual model. The case of
Vienna
Case study Bristol, Manchester and Argues that the trend of three cities’
Milton Keynes smart city development potentially
serves to catalyze a sedimentation of
norms of pragmatic ‘efficiency’ and
constant ‘adaptive learning’ within
institutional processes once more
explicitly guided by longer-term
envisioning of the ‘public good’ and
the aspiration of mitigating public
bads
Case study Amsterdam, Barcelona, Reveals the distribution of the
London, Helsinki, New components in each city for different
York, Vienna; and three years, then these annual activity
with emerging portfolios are clustered; Proposes
excellence: Berlin, four different types of smart cities
Budapest, Moscow emerge from the analysis: 1) The
Green City, 2) The App City, 3) The
Socially Sensitive City, 4) The
Participatory City
Modelling & Carugate, Pioltello, and Describes a new method for
Case study Melzo evaluating urban smartness through
a set of indicators that is applicable to
small and medium-size cities
Case study Cities of Italy and China Highlights the differences between
the theoretical vision and the
empirical implementation of smart
cities; Identifies two aspects that
those differences come from: 1) the
constituent elements of cities, such as
the territorial extension, the existing
tangible infrastructures, the
government model and the culture
and habits of people, 2) the smart city
implementation path and the specific
smart strategy designed at the central
or local level
Literature / Exposes divergences in urban system
review evaluation approaches by
international standardization
organizations—particularly with a
focus on whether they concentrate on
urban smartness or urban
metabolism
Case study Cities of the UK Identifies some issues during the
project implementation: the lack of
training and development,
organizational reluctance to change,
and the lack of a project plan;
Proposes that the challenges faced by
the organization during this project
can be helpful for those
implementing Smart Sustainable
Cities (SSC)
Survey Cities of Sweden Reveals that the overall interaction
level among the involved actors
increases as the energy market
changes from a linear to a networked
logic
Case study Brussels and Wallonia Shows that there is no one-size-fit-all
approach to smart urbanism when
moving away from corporate-led
deterministic models of smart city
development
Case study Vienna Develops a conceptual model capable
of displaying an overview of the
stakeholders taking part in the
initiative in relation to the projects
developed and the challenges they
face; Synthesizes the opinion of
different stakeholders involved in
The roles and perspectives
of different participating
stakeholders should have
been paid more attention
This study does not
consider the change of
smart city activities in
different phases of
development
The evaluation model
developed in this study
still focuses on the
development of a one-
size-fits-all framework,
without considering
different backgrounds
There is a lack of
consideration of the
technical embedding and
the perspective of citizens
The conceptual results
lack of empirical or
practical explanation in
this study
There is a lack of
discussion about the
change of the stakeholder
network and its impact on
the implementation of
SSC
This study only focuses on
the correlation between
smart city development
and energy market, with
an ignorance of smart
city’s development
process and the activities
of stakeholders
There is a lack of
discussion about the
impact of the change of
stakeholders’ roles
The perspective of
evaluating the smart city
development process is
still static, not dynamic
(continued on next page)

17
Y. Dai et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112

(continued )
No Author (Year) Title Type Location Main Contribution Limitation

Smart City initiatives and compare

48 Ferraris et al. The role of universities in the
(2020) Smart City innovation:
Multistakeholder integration
and engagement perspectives
49 Goel and Vishnoi Self-sustainable smart cities:
(2021) Socio-spatial society using
participative bottom-up and
cognitive top-down approach
50 Grimaldi and The alignment of University
Fernandez (2017) curricula with the building of a
Smart City: A case study from
Barcelona
51 Grossi and Trunova Are UN SDGs useful for
(2021) capturing multiple values of
smart city?
52 Haarstad and Are smart city projects
Wathne (2019) catalyzing urban energy
sustainability?
53 Huovila et al. Comparative analysis of
(2019) standardized indicators for
Smart sustainable cities: What
indicators and standards to use
and when?
54 Huston et al. (2015) Smart’ sustainable urban
regeneration: Institutions,
quality and financial
innovation
55 Jiang et al. (2021) Can smart city construction
facilitate green total factor
productivity? A quasi-natural
experiment based on China’s
pilot smart city
56 Kong and Woods Scaling smartness, (de)
(2021) provincialising the city? The
ASEAN Smart Cities Network
and the translational politics
of technocratic regionalism
their attitudes to the key projects
implemented in a corresponding SC
strategy
Survey Cities of Italy and Russia Suggests significant new insights
useful to reapply the mediating role
of universities and to highlight some
newly arising opportunities in
stakeholder engagement
Conceptual / Presents a participative bottom-up
and cognitive top-down paradigm
that focuses on developing self-
sustainable smart cities where
sustainability is at the center of
governance, inhabitants, business,
and all other related entities
Case study Barcelona Concludes that the Barcelona city
hall has the objective to implement
five main innovative services which
are fueled by six main emerging
technologies; Argues that the
universities curriculum is not aligned
with the city hall’s objectives and a
gap exists to prepare the
undergraduates to the professions
required for the Smart City
Literature Moscow Calls for an extension of this
review & Case dichotomous understanding and
study highlight the cross-sectoral
collaborative nature of smart city;
Draws attention to the potential of
smart city to generate multiple values
for a range of stakeholders
Case study Nottingham, Stavanger, Concludes that while sustainability is
and Stockholm not always a major objective of local
implementation of smart city
projects, the smartness agenda
nevertheless increases the ambition
to achieve energy sustainability
targets
Survey / Demonstrates that the selection of
most appropriate indicators depends
on many factors: phase in city
development (planning, operation),
spatial scale (district, city, region,
country), time scale of evaluation
(real-time to annual) and purpose of
assessment (target setting,
monitoring, official reporting, self or
cross-city benchmarking, marketing)
Case study Cities of the UK and Notes policy flux and political
Holland vicissitudes, site and engineering
challenges, blight or social
deprivation all complicate public
realm transformation projects;
Stresses the importance of stable and
effective smart-SUR partnerships
Modelling Cities of China Concludes that smart city
construction pilot significantly
improves green total factor
productivity (GTFP) and green
technological progress (GTP) in
China, but its influence on GTE is not
significant, which means smart city
construction promotes GTFP mainly
through promoting GTP
Survey the ASEAN Smart Cities Identifies three challenges: divergent
Network infrastructural developments,
vertical and horizontal (non-)
integration, and the need to reconcile
(in)formal spaces of the smart city,
that underpin the translational
politics of technocratic regionalism,
and which are likely to compromise
This study does not
discuss the change of
stakeholders’ activities
during the dynamic
process of smart city
development
The conceptual
framework built in this
study lacks empirical test
and the consideration of
backgrounds
This research does not
discuss the impact of other
stakeholders on the
universities and the
innovation development
This study does not
consider the impact of
stakeholder network’s
change during the process
of smart city development
There is a lack of
discussion about the
process and challenges of
achieving the energy
sustainability
There is a lack of
consideration of the urban
heterogeneity
This study ignores the
impact of the change of
the stakeholder network
on the performance of
transformation projects
The focus of this study is
focused on the smart city
construction and green
total factor productivity,
which may limit the
definition of smart city
and smart city domains
There is a lack of dynamic
perspective of viewing the
challenges
(continued on next page)

18
Y. Dai et al.
(continued )
No Author (Year) Title
57 Kummitha (2018) Entrepreneurial urbanism and
technological panacea: Why
Smart City planning needs to
go beyond corporate
visioning?
58 Kummitha and How do we understand smart
Crutzen (2017) cities? An evolutionary
perspective
59 Kuriakose and City profile: Kochi, city region-
Philip (2021) Planning measures to make
Kochi smart and creative
60 Lam and Yang Factors influencing the
(2020) consideration of Public-
Private Partnerships (PPP) for
smart city projects: Evidence
from Hong Kong
61 Lazaroiu and Definition methodology for
Roscia (2012) the smart cities model
62 Lebrument et al. Triggering participation in
(2021) smart cities: Political efficacy,
public administration
satisfaction and sense of
belonging as drivers of
citizens’ intention
63 Leite (2022) Innovation networks for social
impact: An empirical study on
multi-actor collaboration in
projects for smart cities
64 Leroux and Pupion Smart territories and IoT
(2022) adoption by local authorities:
A question of trust, efficiency,
and relationship with the
citizen-user-taxpayer.
65 Lim et al. (2018) Smart cities with big data:
Reference models, challenges,
and considerations
66 Lim et al. (2019) Identifying the results of smart
city development: Findings
from systematic literature
review
Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112
Type Location Main Contribution
the efficacy and success of the ASEAN
Smart Cities Network
Conceptual / Identifies four major concerns that
entrepreneurial aspirations may
raise: 1) the usage, appropriation,
and effectiveness of technology, 2)
social polarization, 3) switching
costs, and 4) data management
Content / Summarizes the various views
analysis pertaining to the building of smart
cities; Proposes a 3RC framework,
consisting of Restrictive, Reflective,
Rationalistic and Critical schools,
which critically analyses various
stages in the development of the field
Case study Kochi Integrates the creative city concept as
a key factor of a smart city and
studies Kochi’s potential to be a
creative city; Concludes that
strategies should be developed to
encourage education and
employment generation such that a
creative class of people and
occupations can flourish in the city.
Survey Hong Kong Argues that not all projects are best
suited to PPP and that there may be
divergent views between the public
and private sectors, with possibilities
for a compromised decision which
both sectors would accept
Modelling Pavia, Bergamo, Como, Highlights the importance of decision
Salerno, Cremona, maker’s subjectivity when dealing
Roma, Foggia, Rieti, with the computation of assigned
Milan, and Naples weights for the considered indicators;
Provides a model that could help in
policy making process as starting
point of discussion between
stakeholders, as well as citizens in
final decision of adoption measures
and best evaluated options
Survey Cities of France Confirms the importance of political
efficacy, the conative dimension of
sense of belonging, and the central
role public administration
satisfaction when it comes to
evaluating the intention of citizens to
participate in smart city projects,
which cover essential elements of the
human bond between citizens and
their smart city.
Literature Curitiba and Aguas Demonstrates that the innovation
review & Case network is driven by the activities of
study searching, acting, and convincing
actors of an opportunity to develop
smart city solutions; Shows that
innovation networks emerge not
solely from a business goal, but also
from a social goal and can still
generate business opportunities for
companies
Survey Cities of France Concludes that trust in IoT is the
result of normative pressure coming
from the professionalization of an
organizational field
Case analysis / Identifies six challenges in
& Action transforming data into information
research for smart cities; Provides five
considerations to address the
challenges in implementing the
models
Systematic / Analyzes positive and negative
literature results of smart city development,
review both hypothetical and observed ones
19
Limitation
This study does not
discuss the impact of the
change of the stakeholder
network on the
entrepreneurial-driven
push for technology
The establishment of the
framework built in this
study lacks considerations
of different contexts
This study does not view
the smart city
development of Kochi as a
dynamic process
There is a lack of
discussion about the
impact of stakeholders’
roles on the collaboration
type of projects
There is a lack of
discussion about the
impact of stakeholders’
roles on their decision of
assigning weights for
indicators
There is a lack of
consideration of the
impact of other stages
before they participate the
smart city project
This study does not
consider the impact of
stakeholder network’s
change on the innovation
network
This research ignores the
impact of the stakeholder
network’s change
The perspective of
viewing the information
transformation aspect of
smart city development is
still static, not dynamic
There is a lack of a
dynamic perspective of
viewing the smart city
development
(continued on next page)
Y. Dai et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112

(continued )
No Author (Year) Title Type Location Main Contribution Limitation

67 Macke et al. (2018) Smart city and quality of life:
Citizens’ perception in a
Brazilian case study
68 Macke et al. (2019) Smart sustainable cities
evaluation and sense of
community
69 Madsen (2018) Data in the smart city: How
incongruent frames challenge
the transition from ideal to
practice
70 Manupati et al. A multi-criteria decision
(2018) making approach for the urban
renewal in Southern India
71 Marchetti et al. Are global north smart city
(2019) models capable to assess Latin
American cities? A model and
indicators for a new context
72 Marrone and Smart Cities: A Review and
Hammerle (2018) Analysis of Stakeholders’
Literature
73 Masik et al. (2021) Smart City strategies and new
urban development policies in
the Polish context
74 Mattoni et al. A multilevel method to assess
(2015) and design the renovation and
integration of Smart Cities
75 Mattoni et al. Towards the development of a
(2019) smart district: The application
of an holistic planning
approach
76 Mattoni et al. Planning smart cities:
(2020) Comparison of two
quantitative multicriteria
methods applied to real case
studies
77 Mayaud et al. Future access to essential
(2019) services in a growing smart
city: The case of Surrey, British
Columbia
Survey Curitiba Concludes that success within the
domain of smart living can be
achieved by providing the four
factors revealed by the analysis: 1)
socio-structural relations, 2)
environmental well-being, 3)
material well-being, and 4)
community integration
Survey Caràzinho, Ibirubá, Reveals four main factors for the
Não-Me-Toque, Passo assessment of residents’ evaluation
Fundo, and Tapera on smart sustainable city: material
well-being, public services and
facilities, environmental well-being,
and sense of community
Case study Copenhagen Provides a description of two distinct
technological frames that shared a
focus on links between markets,
evidence and governance, but that
had much different ways of making
sense of them
Survey Cities of India Proposes a decision-making
framework for the ongoing urban
renewal in India including 7 criteria
and 27 sub-criteria
Conceptual Latin American cities Presents a model to assess ongoing
sustainable efforts of Latin American
cities, where cities are still seeking a
minimum level of development and a
suitable attendance of citizen needs,
trying to solve their existing
inequalities
Literature / Extracts and compares topics in news
review media (for citizens), trade
publications (for businesses),
academic articles (for research
organizations) and government
reports (for governments); Suggests
that citizens tend to be under-
represented in discussions on smart
cities and highlights those topics
considered relevant only by smart
city citizens
Content Cities of Poland Confirms that Polish cities appear to
analysis & be partly successful in the
Case study implementation of smart city
strategies; Indicates that how smart
city principles might develop into
more forceful planning instruments
as a result of long-term learning
processes
Conceptual / Develops a model based on matrices
of integration, which is used for
investigating the relations existing
among urban and territorial
networks, actors and stakeholders,
functions and activities, axes of
action and multiplicity of visions
Modelling Rome Assesses if and to what extent the
actions of seven Smart scenarios
would influence the performance of
the district from a global perspective
(Economy, Energy, Mobility,
Community, Environment)
compared to the base case scenario
Modelling & Sicily and Rome Describes and validates the QIMM
Case study (Quantitative Incidence Matrix
Method) planning approach through
the comparison with the Hybrid AHP
method and the application of these
two models to two real case studies
Case study Surrey Highlights how open-source data and
code can be leveraged to conduct in-
depth analysis of accessibility
demand across a city, which is key for
ensuring inclusive and ‘smart’ urban
investment strategies
This study does not
mention the process of
achieving the smart living
by those four factors
There is a lack of
consideration of the urban
heterogeneity
This study focuses too
much on technology, with
an ignorance of the
changing stakeholder
network and its impact on
the frame
There is a lack of process
perspective in this study,
which makes it hard to be
applied in practice
This study does not
discuss the background of
Latin American regions,
which can help it develop
a context-oriented
framework of smart city
development
This study does not
consider the impact of
stakeholder network’s
change during the process
of smart city development
There is a lack of process
perspective in this study
and discussion about
change of stakeholders’
roles
There is a lack of dynamic
perspective in this study
and discussion about
change of the stakeholder
network
There is a lack of dynamic
perspective and
consideration of different
contexts’ impact
The stakeholders’ opinion
in the Hybrid AHP model
has a clear impact on the
final ranking, which could
make the results too
subjective
The perspective of this
study is focused on that of
authorities, and there is a
lack of discussion about
other stakeholders’
perspective
(continued on next page)

20
Y. Dai et al.
(continued )
No Author (Year) Title
78 Monteiro et al. An urban building database
(2018) (UBD) supporting a smart city
information system
79 Mora et al. (2019) Combining co-citation
clustering and text-based
analysis to reveal the main
development paths of smart
cities
80 Mora et al. (2019) Strategic principles for smart
city development: A multiple
case study analysis of
European best practices
81 Mosannenzadeh Identifying and prioritizing
et al. (2017) barriers to implementation of
smart energy city projects in
Europe: An empirical
approach
82 Nakano and Will smart cities enhance the
Washizu (2021) social capital of residents? The
importance of smart
neighborhood management
83 Neirotti et al. Current trends in Smart City
(2014) initiatives: Some stylised facts
84 Nicolas et al. Natural language processing-
(2021) based characterization of top-
down communication in smart
cities for enhancing citizen
alignment
85 Nicolas et al. Quantifying the dynamic
(2020) effects of smart city
development enablers using
structural equation modeling
86 Nunes et al. (2021) Cities go smart!: A system
dynamics-based approach to
smart city conceptualization
87 Parmentola et al. Is blockchain able to enhance
(2022) environmental sustainability?
A systematic review and
research agenda from the
perspective of Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs)
88 Paroutis et al. A strategic view on smart city
(2014) technology: The case of IBM
Smarter Cities during a
recession
Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112
Type Location Main Contribution
Conceptual & Lisbon Proposes a conceptual framework to
Case study build an Urban Building Database,
which goal is to provide an integrated
data repository, available in a
universal format, for different users
Bibliometric / Reveals five emerging development
analysis paths of smart cities: 1) Experimental
Path, 2) Ubiquitous Path, 3)
Corporate Path, 4) European Path,
and 5) Holistic Path
Case study Amsterdam, Barcelona, Proposes a series of critical insights
Helsinki, and Vienna into what strategic principles drive
smart city development in Europe;
Generates scientific knowledge
which helps to overcome the
dichotomous nature of smart city
research
Literature Europe Indicates that the key barriers are
review & lacking or fragmented political
Survey support on the long term at the policy
level, and lack of good cooperation
and acceptance among project
partners, insufficient external
financial support, lack of skilled and
trained personnel, and fragmented
ownership at the project level
Survey Yokohama Concludes that smart city-oriented
area management should be
promoted by arranging a top-down
and bottom-up approach using social
capital indicators that are common
ratings for both approaches
Survey / Provides with a comprehensive
understanding of the notion of smart
city through the elaboration of a
taxonomy of pertinent application
domains, namely: natural resources
and energy, transport and mobility,
buildings, living, government, and
economy and people
Case study Boston, Helsinki, Seoul, Characterizes and classifies top-down
and Taipei announcements formulated by city
developers into six alignment
categories (i.e., smart economy,
smart people, smart governance,
smart mobility, smart environment,
and smart living); Compares top-
down communication trends with
real-world levels of urban
performance
Modelling / Demonstrates that non-technical
enabler clusters, as well as the
technical drivers, have significant
impacts on the performances of smart
cities with their highly interrelated,
synergetic dynamics
Modelling / Proposes a decision-support model
based on cognitive mapping
techniques, which facilitated the
aggregation of determinants from the
most varied areas of smart cities
Systematic / Indicates that blockchain technology
literature could contribute to environmentally
review & sustainable development goals from
Meta-analysis different points of view, such as
supporting the realization of a
sustainable supply chain, improving
energy efficiency and promoting the
creation of secure and reliable smart
cities
Literature the UK and Ireland Offers a strategic view to city
review & Case technology and an empirical
study examination of city technology from
the perspective of stakeholders and
actors who are tasked with the role to
21
Limitation
There is a lack of
discussion about
perspectives of different
users
The differences of the
development process of
five paths should have
been discussed more in
detail
This study ignores the
change of stakeholder
network and the impact of
different contexts on the
implementation of
strategic principles
There is a lack of
discussion about the
connections between
those barriers
This study focuses on the
perspective of citizens,
with a lack of discussion
about other stakeholders’
perspectives and the
relationship between
different stakeholders
This study does not
discuss about the impact
of different contexts on
the ranking of domains’
priority for smart city
development
There is a lack of
consideration of the
process that how different
contexts effect the top-
down communication
trends
There is a lack of
consideration of the urban
heterogeneity
The result got from the
proposed model is
strongly dependent on the
expert panel’s knowledge
and experience
This study does not
mention the process that
how relevant stakeholders
apply different types of
blockchain technology
and achieve sustainable
development goals
The relationship between
technology firms and
other stakeholders is not
discussed
(continued on next page)
Y. Dai et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112

(continued )
No Author (Year) Title Type Location Main Contribution Limitation

create and disseminate these

89 Qayyum et al. Managing smart cities through
(2021) six sigma DMADICV method:
A review-based conceptual
framework
90 Ramirez et al. A new methodology to support
(2021) smartness at the district level
of metropolitan areas in
emerging economies: The case
of Santiago de Chile
91 Ramu et al. (2022) Federated learning enabled
digital twins for smart cities:
Concepts, recent advances,
and future directions
92 Razmjoo et al. Effective policies to overcome
(2021) barriers in the development of
smart cities
93 Romão et al. (2018) The smart city as a common
place for tourists and
residents: A structural analysis
of the determinants of urban
attractiveness
94 Ruhlandt (2018) The governance of smart
cities: A systematic literature
review
95 Ruhlandt (2020) One approach does not fit all
(smart) cities: Causal recipes
for cities’ use of data and
analytics
96 Sakuma et al. A comparison of smart city
(2021) research and practice in
Sweden and Japan: trends and
opportunities identified from a
literature review and co-
occurrence network analysis
97 Schiavone et al. Business model innovation for
(2019) urban smartization
98 Secinaro et al. Towards a hybrid model for
(2021) the management of smart city
initiatives
technologies;
Systematic / Provides a conceptual DMADICV
literature framework for adopting Six Sigma in
review & smart cities, which consists of six key
Modelling constructs as layers in smart cities:
Define, Measure, Analyze, Design,
Improve, and Control & Verify
Modelling & Santiago Proposes a methodological approach
Case study to evaluate smartness while
considering a city not as a
homogeneous space, but as a space
divided into different districts with
different characteristics and
dynamics, and therefore different
topologies and citizen needs
Survey / Focuses on the integration of the two
promising technologies, Federated
Learning and Digital Twin, for
adoption in real-time and life-critical
scenarios, as well as for ease of
governance in smart city based
applications
Literature / Identifies the main barriers: poor
review private-public participation,
utilization of fossil fuels, lack of
attention to the environment,
insufficient internet technology (IT)
infrastructure, and old technology
throughout the cities; Proposes the
necessary policies to overcome those
barriers
Modelling / Presents a structural modeling
analysis of the performance
determinants of urban attractiveness,
in terms of resident population and
international tourism demand
Systematic / Indicates that various smart city
literature governance definitions exist,
review emphasizing on various focal points;
Reveals substantial variances in
contextual factors, measurement
techniques and outcomes among the
concepts of smart city governance
Modelling Cities of the US Identifies the existence of several
different plausible causal pathways
of smart city development
Case study Cities of Sweden and Focuses on and compares the
Japan practices of Sweden and Japan in the
implementation and discussion of
smart cities; Reveals unique trends in
both countries related to the
conceptual framing of smart cities,
participation of local government
and citizens, and differing
interpretations of vulnerability to
hazards
Integrative / Identifies the main drivers and
literature factors used by policymakers and
review corporate managers to promote the
“smartization” of their urban
contexts; Proposes a smart city
framework by adopting the Canvas
framework for business modelling
Case study Turin Concludes that despite the
conventional distinction between
public and private entities, managing
smart city initiatives that include
complex factors such as new
technologies may require the
adoption of hybrid management
solutions by urban planners,
There is a lack of a
dynamic perspective of
viewing the smart city
development
There is a lack of
discussion about the
change of relationship
between stakeholders,
which may be affected by
the function of districts
The focus of this study is
the technological solution
of smart city, which limits
the defining of smart city
and the consideration of
other aspects
The connection between
barriers (which is crucial
for developing solutions
and policies) is ignored
There is a lack of
consideration of the urban
heterogeneity and
perspective of viewing the
smart city development as
a dynamic process
The connection between
components is neglected
There is a lack of
consideration of the
perspective that views the
smart city development as
a dynamic process
The difference of
stakeholder network in
two countries lacks
discussion
The impact of different
contexts on the smart city
framework is ignored
The collaboration
between different smart
city variables is not
discussed
(continued on next page)

22
Y. Dai et al.
(continued )
No Author (Year) Title
99 Shamsuzzoha et al. Smart city for sustainable
(2021) environment: A comparison of
participatory strategies from
Helsinki, Singapore and
London
100 Shmelev and Multidimensional
Shmeleva (2019) sustainability benchmarking
for smart megacities
101 Silva et al. (2018) Towards sustainable smart
cities: A review of trends,
architectures, components,
and open challenges in smart
cities
102 Simonofski et al. Hearing the Voice of Citizens
(2019) in Smart City Design: The
CitiVoice Framework
103 Siokas et al. (2022) The smart city as a hub for
nourishing public-private
partnerships
104 Siokas et al. (2021) Implementing smart city
strategies in Greece: Appetite
for success
105 Sodiq et al. (2019) Towards modern sustainable
cities: Review of sustainability
principles and trends
106 Sokolov et al. Scenario-based identification
(2019) of key factors for smart cities
development policies
107 Soyata et al. (2019) Smart city in crisis:
Technology and policy
concerns
108 Tomor et al. (2021) Smart governance in
institutional context: An in-
depth analysis of Glasgow,
Utrecht, and Curitiba
Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112
Type Location Main Contribution
especially when multidisciplinary
and complex skills are required
Literature Helsinki, Singapore, and Compares the smart city initiatives in
review & Case London selected target countries; Analyzes
study various actors responsible to convert
a traditional city to a smart city
Survey London, New York, Proposes the approach that allows
Hong Kong, Los considering performance under four
Angeles, Sao Paolo, Rio different policy priorities:
de Janeiro, Paris, Berlin, environmental, economic, social and
Moscow, Beijing, smart, changing the focus of the
Singapore, Shanghai, sustainability assessment; Shows that
Sydney and Tokyo Singapore dominates the
sustainability rankings under
environmental policy priorities.
Tokyo leads under economic and
social priorities, and London and
Tokyo – under smart city priorities
Conceptual / Presents a brief overview of smart
cities, followed by the features and
characteristics, generic architecture,
composition, and real-world
implementations of smart cities;
Identifies some challenges and
opportunities
Survey & Case Mons, Namur, and Proposes a framework to structure
study Brussels and evaluate citizen participation in
smart cities; Structures the
participation in Namur allowed
providing some governance
recommendations to make “Smart
Namur” more citizen-oriented, and
also provided some general
recommendations for smart cities
Survey / Clarifies the influence of potential
stakeholders on the implementation
of smart city projects; Demonstrates
the public and private organizations’
critical role in supporting a smart
strategy
Survey Cities of Greece Maps, evaluates and analyses the
strategic actions of the Greek
Municipalities from an internal and
external perspective of a public
authority
Literature / Explained each sustainability
review principle (which is connected to
elements needed to make a
functional sustainable city),
highlights its core values and gives
reasons why it is an important
candidate to be considered in making
a working city
Survey & Case Moscow, Kazan, and Provides insight into the key features
study Winterthur of urban development that allow for
distinguishing between smart cities
and conventional ones as well as
taking these features into
consideration for improving existing
policy instruments for smart cities
Conceptual / Proposes a holistic three-dimensional
approach to the realization of smart
box mesh network system
Case study Curitiba, Glasgow, and Suggests that the institutional
Utrecht context plays an important role in
shaping smart governance in terms of
societal goals, collaboration and
technology use; Provides a heuristic
model of institutional influencing,
23
Limitation
The difference of
stakeholder network in
three countries lacks
discussion
The sustainability
development is a dynamic
process, thus the process
(including stakeholders
and their activities)
leading to certain results
of sustainability should
have been discussed based
on the context together
with the results
The connection between
those challenges and
opportunities is ignored,
which should have been
discussed with the
stakeholders and the
change of their activities
There is a lack of
discussion of the change
of the relationship
between other
stakeholders and citizens
This study does not
consider the impact of
contexts on the role of the
public and private
collaboration
There is a lack of
discussion about the
different dynamic
processes of the three
phases, Planning Phase,
Implementation Phase,
and Final Phase in
different regions
There is a lack of a
dynamic perspective of
viewing the sustainability
city development
The connection between
different features is
neglected
The focus of this research
is on the technology
application, with an
ignorance of the
connection between other
smart city factors
There is a lack of dynamic
perspective in this study
and discussion about
change of the stakeholder
network
(continued on next page)
Y. Dai et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112

(continued )
No Author (Year) Title Type Location Main Contribution Limitation

which helps to better understand

patterns of smart governance and
their variances across cities
109 Ullah et al. (2021) Risk management in Systematic / Proposes a multilayered TOE-based There is a lack of
sustainable smart cities literature risk management framework (which discussion about the
governance: A TOE framework review & links smart citizens to each other connection between
Meta-analysis through the smart city governance different aspects of risks
team and the integrated TOE layers) and how stakeholders’
to identify and manage the risks activities effect the risks
associated with smart city
governance in the current study
110 van den Buuse and An exploration of smart city Survey / Provides insight into how MNEs have There is a lack of the
Kolk (2019) approaches by international developed resources and capabilities perspective of
ICT firms in the smart city realm from a participating citizens and
multitude of smart city engagements the impact of other
globally, and shows how firm- stakeholders on
specific strategies and programs for technology firms
smart cities (IBM Smarter Cities,
Cisco Smart + Connected
Communities, and Accenture
Intelligent Cities) have facilitated
this process; Provides an actor-
centric perspective on the (potential)
role of business in the emergence and
spread of technological innovations
for urban development
111 Wang et al. (2021) Is your smart city inclusive? Modelling Cities of the US Concludes: 1) insufficient attention The study ignores the
Evaluating proposals from the was given to these underrepresented connection and
US Department of population groups in the proposals; interactions between
Transportation’s Smart City 2) more inclusive smart city those challenges
Challenge strategies are needed to address these
groups’ needs and guarantee their
rights; 3) government policies to
support ISCs are needed to ensure
that the implementation of Smart
City ideas addresses the needs of
these groups; and 4) universal design
practices could be used to address the
needs of many underrepresented
populations
112 Wataya and Shaw Measuring the value and the Conceptual / Outlines and analyses a framework to There is a lack of dynamic
(2019) role of soft assets in smart city measure soft assets in smart city view of the balanced
development implementation to assist policy framework, and how this
discussions in urban development framework is affected by
the change of contexts
113 Wu (2020) Determinants of citizen Modelling / Identifies the factors that influence This study only focuses on
-generated data in a smart city: 311 system user behaviors with one aspect of the smart
Analysis of 311 system user respect to the creation of citizen- city development, the
behavior generated data to help improve the technology acceptance of
management of citizen relationships E-Government use
behaviors and user
intention, but ignores the
interaction with other
aspects
114 Wu et al. (2018) Smart city with Chinese Conceptual Cities of China Proposes a development framework The definition of smart
characteristics against the of smart city with Chinese city is limited by this
background of big data: Idea, characteristics against the study’s focus on
action and risk background of big data, including technology
key actions, including rational
planning of city infrastructures, the
establishment and improvement of
long-acting mechanism, the effective
performance of city managerial
function
115 Yang and Zhao Research on the development Modelling Cities of China Constructs an intelligent neural There is a lack of
(2021) level evaluation of smart city network model for evaluating the discussion about the
in China development level of smart city based definition of smart city in
on GRA-BPNN model; Summarizes the context of China and
the development ideas of smart city the exact phase of the
in different dimensions, continuously smart city development
expands the development space;
Selects the matching development
strategy and development model
according to the development needs
of smart city in various regions;
(continued on next page)

24
Y. Dai et al.
(continued )
No Author (Year) Title
116 Yeh (2017) The effects of successful ICT-
based smart city services:
From citizens’ perspectives
117 Yigitcanlar et al. What are the key factors
(2022) affecting smart city
transformation readiness?
Evidence from Australian
cities
118 Yigitcanlar et al. Understanding ’smart cities’:
(2018) Intertwining development
drivers with desired outcomes
in a multidimensional
framework
119 Yigitcanlar et al. Can cities become smart
(2019) without being sustainable? A
systematic review of the
literature
120 Yigitcanlar and Lee Korean ubiquitous-eco-city: A
(2014) smart-sustainable urban form
or a branding hoax?
121 Yuan et al. (2020) The Missing Parts from Social
Media-Enabled Smart Cities:
Who, Where, When, and
What?
122 Zhang (2021) Game and coordination of
diverse benefits in smart city
PPP projects based on
evolutionary game
123 Zhao et al. (2021) Smart city research: A holistic
and state-of-the-art literature
review
124 Zhu et al. (2022) How can smart city shape a
happier life? The mechanism
for developing a Happiness
Driven Smart City
125 Zuzul (2019) MATTER BATTLES:
COGNITIVE
REPRESENTATIONS,
BOUNDARY OBJECTS, AND
Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112
Type Location Main Contribution Limitation
Improves the construction and
development capacity of smart city
Survey Cities of Taiwan Reveal that citizens are willing to Since the development of
accept and use ICT-based smart city smart city is a long
services if the services are designed process, there is a lack of
with innovative concepts that secure discussion about the
their privacy and offer a high quality change of citizens’
of services perspective
Survey Cities of Australia Discloses that the following factors This study does not
determine about two-thirds (65 %) of consider the urban
the smart city transformation heterogeneity
readiness: 1) Close distance to
domestic airport, 2) Low remoteness
value, 3) High population density, 4)
Low unemployment level, and 5)
High labor productivity
Systematic / Identifies that the literature reveals There is a lack of
literature three types of drivers of smart cities- empirical test for the
review community, technology, policy conceptual results
which are linked to five desired
outcomes-productivity,
sustainability, accessibility,
wellbeing, livability, governance;
Helps in expanding our
understanding beyond a monocentric
technology focus of the current
common smart city practice
Systematic / Clarifies major challenges of smart There is a lack of
literature cities in delivering sustainable discussion about the
review outcomes: 1) Smart city policies are changing process of such
characterized by heavy identified challenges
technocentricity, 2) Smart city
practices involve complexities, and
3) Smart city notions are
conceptualized in an ad-hoc manner
Case study Cities of Korea Places Korean u-eco-city initiatives This study does not
under the microscope, and critically discuss the dynamic
discusses their prospects in forming a process of developing u-
smart and sustainable urban form eco-city impacted by the
and becoming an ideal city model stakeholder network
Survey / Formalizes the sampling biases of The definition of smart
location-based social media data city is limited by this
from various perspectives, including study’s focus on
sociodemographic, spatiotemporal, technology
and semantic
Modelling / Demonstrate the necessity to There is a lack of
standardize and constrain the multi- discussion about the
subject strategy, realize incentive impact of contexts on the
compatibility, and guide the multi- correlation between the
subject strategy to be beneficial to type of projects and their
project construction performance
Literature / Highlights four major challenges for There is a lack of
review small city research: 1) smart city discussion about the
research is often fragmented and connection between
technology-driven, 2) many studies stakeholders and smart
are on the perceived benefits of smart city factors in identified
cities and fewer on the downsides of smart city domains
technologies and failed projects, 3)
there is a need to build new theories
for smart city research, and 4) there
is a lack of empirical testing of the
conceptual frameworks developed in
smart city research
Conceptual & Manchester Introduces a Happiness Driven Smart The established
Case study City (HDSC) mechanism to better framework is limited by
guide the development of Smart City its sole focus on the
towards a more human-centered perspective of citizens
direction
Survey / Develop a process model exploring There is a lack of
how and why the development of discussion about the
boundary objects can manifest as context’s impact on the
divisive conflict that derails two forms of ambiguity
(continued on next page)
25
Y. Dai et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112

(continued )
No Author (Year) Title Type Location Main Contribution Limitation

THE FAILURE OF collaboration; Identifies two forms of

COLLABORATION IN TWO ambiguity: concept ambiguity, a lack
SMART CITIES of shared ideas about what smart
cities were, and process ambiguity, a
lack of shared ideas about how smart
cities should be developed

Appendix D: Matrix of stakeholders’ engagement in each stage

Stakeholder National Local government Project Firm Civic engagement Community Citizen Research
Stage government team institution

Smart city goal (3)(7)(15)(22) (15)(23)(33)(34)(38) (15)(34)(39) (47) (15)(23)

definition (23)(36)(38) (39)(42)(47)(59)(66) (42)(47)(66) (39)(42)
(39)(42)(47) (68)(79)(80)(82)(87) (72)(79) (47)(59)
(59)(66)(80) (92)(96)(99)(102) (107) (66)(67)
(96)(99)(106) (105)(106)(107)(109) (68)(72)
(109)(119) (119) (82)(84)
(92)(99)
(102)(105)
(106)(107)
(109)(119)
Smart city (39)(64)(66) (11)(16)(27)(36)(42) (11)(14)(22) (4)(27)(34) (16)(34)(36)
technology (114) (47)(49)(50)(53)(54) (25)(27)(34) (36)(47) (39)(42)(47)
innovation (57)(66)(79)(87)(92) (36)(39)(42) (54)(58) (48)(49)(50)
(106)(107)(109)(114) (47)(49)(50) (67)(72) (54)(66)(72)
(118)(119) (54)(57)(58) (82)(92) (79)(98)
(60)(63)(66) (105)(106) (114)
(72)(79)(87) (107)(109)
(88)(92)(98) (114)(118)
(106)(107)
(114)(118)
(119)
Smart city strategy (3)(7)(39)(96) (2)(3)(7)(13)(14)(19) (2)(3)(13) (2)(13)(14)(19)(31) (3)(13)(31)
development (22)(23)(33)(34)(35) (23)(33)(36) (33)(34)(35)(39)(42) (33)(47)(54)
(36)(39)(42)(47)(53) (39)(47)(54) (47)(53)(54)(58)(59) (60)(66)(69)
(54)(57)(59)(60)(63) (60)(63)(64) (60)(63)(64)(66)(67) (72)(79)(80)
(64)(66)(67)(68)(69) (69)(72)(79) (68)(69)(72)(82)(84) (88)(105)
(79)(80)(82)(88)(90) (80)(88)(99) (90)(92)(96)(98)(99) (106)
(92)(96)(98)(99) (102)(105)(106)
(102)(105)(106)(109) (109)(113)(117)
(113)(118)(119) (118)(119)
Smart city plan (7)(42) (3)(7)(16)(31)(35) (3)(13)(16) (3)(4)(31) (62) (4)(13)(31) (13) (3)
implementation (39)(88)(42)(47)(54) (31)(33) (88)(47)(54) (35)(59)(60)
(62)(66)(69)(79)(81) (34)(35) (69)(79)(81) (69)(72)(79)
(99)(102)(105)(106) (36)(39) (80)(81)(82)
(109) (42)(47) (84)(99)(102)
(54)(62) (105)(118)
(66)(69)
(79)(81)
(82)(99)
(102)
Smart city plan (9)(36)(39)(42) (9)(36)(39)(42)(47) (36)(47)(54) (64)(72)
evaluation (54)(66)(81) (54)(58)(66)(69)(81) (58)(69)(81) (113)
(113) (92)(113)

References Adapa, S. (2018). Indian smart cities and cleaner production initiatives–Integrated
framework and recommendations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 3351–3366.
Afzalan, N., Sanchez, T. W., & Evans-Cowley, J. (2017). Creating smarter cities:
Abu-Rayash, A., & Dincer, I. (2021). Development of integrated sustainability
Considerations for selecting online participatory tools. Cities, 67, 21–30.
performance indicators for better management of smart cities. Sustainable Cities and
Ahad, M. A., Paiva, S., Tripathi, G., & Feroz, N. (2020). Enabling technologies and
Society, 67, Article 102704.
sustainable smart cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 61, Article 102301.
Abusaada, H., & Elshater, A. (2021). Competitiveness, distinctiveness and singularity in
Ahvenniemi, H., Huovila, A., Pinto-Seppä, I., & Airaksinen, M. (2017). What are the
urban design: A systematic review and framework for smart cities. Sustainable Cities
differences between sustainable and smart cities? Cities, 60, 234–245.
and Society, 68, Article 102782.

26
Y. Dai et al.
Aina, Y. A., Wafer, A., Ahmed, F., & Alshuwaikhat, H. M. (2019). Top-down sustainable
urban development? Urban governance transformation in Saudi Arabia. Cities, 90,
272–281.
Akande, A., Cabral, P., Gomes, P., & Casteleyn, S. (2019). The Lisbon ranking for smart
sustainable cities in Europe. Sustainable Cities and Society, 44, 475–487.
Akande, A., Cabral, P., & Casteleyn, S. (2020). Understanding the sharing economy and
its implication on sustainability in smart cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277,
Article 124077.
Alawadhi, S., Aldama-Nalda, A., Chourabi, H., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Leung, S., Mellouli, S., &
Walker, S. (2012). Building understanding of smart city initiatives. In International
conference on electronic government (pp. 40–53). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions,
performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), 3–21.
Alizadeh, T. (2017). An investigation of IBM’s smarter cites challenge: What do
participating cities want? Cities, 63, 70–80.
Allam, Z., & Dhunny, Z. A. (2019). On big data, artificial intelligence and smart cities.
Cities, 89, 80–91.
Almirall, E., Wareham, J., Ratti, C., Conesa, P., Bria, F., Gaviria, A., & Edmondson, A.
(2016). Smart cities at the crossroads: New tensions in city transformation. California
Management Review, 59(1), 141–152.
Ang-Tan, R., & Ang, S. (2022). Understanding the smart city race between Hong Kong
and Singapore. Public Money & Management, 42(4), 231–240.
Angelidou, M. (2014). Smart city policies: A spatial approach. Cities, 41, S3–S11.
Angelidou, M. (2015). Smart cities: A conjuncture of four forces. Cities, 47, 95–106.
Angelidou, M. (2017). The role of smart city characteristics in the plans of fifteen cities.
Journal of Urban Technology, 24(4), 3–28.
Ang-Tan, R., & Ang, S. (2022). Understanding the smart city race between Hong Kong
and Singapore. Public Money & Management, 42(4), 231–240.
Ardito, L., Ferraris, A., Petruzzelli, A. M., Bresciani, S., & Del Giudice, M. (2019). The role
of universities in the knowledge management of smart city projects. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 312–321.
Argento, D., Grossi, G., Jääskeläinen, A., Servalli, S., & Suomala, P. (2020).
Governmentality and performance for the smart city. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal.
Axelsson, K., & Granath, M. (2018). Stakeholders’ stake and relation to smartness in
smart city development: Insights from a Swedish city planning project. Government
Information Quarterly, 35(4), 693–702.
Attoh, K., Wells, K., & Cullen, D. (2019). We’re building their data”: Labor, alienation,
and idiocy in the smart city. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 37(6),
1007–1024.
Baibarac-Duignan, C., & de Lange, M. (2021). Controversing the datafied smart city:
Conceptualizing a ’making-controversial’approach to civic engagement. Big Data &
Society, 8(2), Article 20539517211025557.
Ballas, D. (2013). What makes a ‘happy city’? Cities, 32, S39–S50.
Bastidas, V., Reychav, I., Ofir, A., Bezbradica, M., & Helfert, M. (2022). Concepts for
modeling smart cities. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 64(3), 359–373.
Battarra, R., Gargiulo, C., Pappalardo, G., Boiano, D. A., & Oliva, J. S. (2016). Planning in
the era of information and communication technologies. Discussing the “label:
Smart” in South-European cities with environmental and socio-economic challenges.
Cities, 59, 1–7.
Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., & Orús, C. (2016). City attachment and use of urban services:
Benefits for smart cities. Cities, 50, 75–81.
Ben Letaifa, S. B. (2015). How to strategize smart cities: Revealing the SMART model.
Journal of business research, 68(7), 1414–1419.
Beretta, I. (2018). The social effects of eco-innovations in Italian smart cities. Cities, 72,
115–121.
Bhushan, B., Khamparia, A., Sagayam, K. M., Sharma, S. K., Ahad, M. A., &
Debnath, N. C. (2020). Blockchain for smart cities: A review of architectures,
integration trends and future research directions. Sustainable Cities and Society, 61,
Article 102360.
Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2017). On the social shaping dimensions of smart sustainable
cities: A study in science, technology, and society. Sustainable Cities and Society, 29,
219–246.
Blasi, S., Ganzaroli, A., & De Noni, I. (2022). Smartening sustainable development in
cities: Strengthening the theoretical linkage between smart cities and SDGs.
Sustainable Cities and Society, 80, Article 103793.
Blanck, M., & Ribeiro, J. L. D. (2021). Smart cities financing system: An empirical
modelling from the European context. Cities, 116, Article 103268.
Borsekova, K., Koróny, S., Vaňová, A., & Vitálišová, K. (2018). Functionality between the
size and indicators of smart cities: A research challenge with policy implications.
Cities, 78, 17–26.
Braun, T., Fung, B. C., Iqbal, F., & Shah, B. (2018). Security and privacy challenges in
smart cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 39, 499–507.
Broo, D. G., Lamb, K., Ehwi, R. J., Pärn, E., Koronaki, A., Makri, C., & Zomer, T. (2021).
Built environment of Britain in 2040: Scenarios and strategies. Sustainable Cities and
Society, 65, Article 102645.
Bruni, E., Panza, A., Sarto, L., & Khayatian, F. (2017). Evaluation of cities’ smartness by
means of indicators for small and medium cities and communities: A methodology
for Northern Italy. Sustainable Cities and Society, 34, 193–202.
Buallay, A., El Khoury, R., & Hamdan, A. (2021). Sustainability reporting in smart cities:
A multidimensional performance measures. Cities, 119, Article 103397.
Bunders, D. J., & Varró, K. (2019). Problematizing data-driven urban practices: Insights
from five Dutch ‘smart cities. Cities, 93, 145–152.
Bundgaard, L., & Borrás, S. (2021). City-wide scale-up of smart city pilot projects:
Governance conditions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 172, Article
121014.
27
Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112
Camboim, G. F., Zawislak, P. A., & Pufal, N. A. (2019). Driving elements to make cities
smarter: Evidences from European projects. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 142, 154–167.
Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart cities in Europe. Journal of Urban
Technology, 18(2), 65–82.
Care, S., Trotta, A., Carè, R., & Rizzello, A. (2018). Crowdfunding for the development of
smart cities. Business Horizons, 61(4), 501–509.
Carvalho, L. (2015). Smart cities from scratch? A socio-technical perspective. Cambridge
Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 43–60.
Ceballos, G. R., & Larios, V. M. (2016). A model to promote citizen driven government in
a smart city: Use case at GDL smart city. In 2016 IEEE international smart cities
conference (ISC2) (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
Cedillo-Elias, E. J., Orizaga-Trejo, J. A., Larios, V. M., & Arellano, L. A. M. (2018). Smart
government infrastructure based in sdn networks: the case of guadalajara
metropolitan area. In 2018 IEEE international smart cities conference (ISC2) (pp. 1–4).
IEEE.
Chen, Z. (2021). Application of environmental ecological strategy in smart city space
architecture planning. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 23, Article 101684.
Contreras, G., & Platania, F. (2019). Economic and policy uncertainty in climate change
mitigation: The London Smart City case scenario. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 142, 384–393.
Cowley, R., & Caprotti, F. (2019). Smart city as anti-planning in the UK. Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space, 37(3), 428–448.
Csukás, M. S., & Szabó, R. Z. (2021). The many faces of the smart city: Differing value
propositions in the activity portfolios of nine cities. Cities, 112, Article 103116.
Curşeu, P. L., Semeijn, J. H., & Nikolova, I. (2021). Career challenges in smart cities: A
sociotechnical systems view on sustainable careers. Human Relations, 74(5),
656–677.
Dai, Y., Day, S., Masi, D., & Gölgeci, I. (2022). A synthesised framework of eco-industrial
park transformation and stakeholder interaction. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 31(7), 3122–3151.
D’Amico, G., Taddeo, R., Shi, L., Yigitcanlar, T., & Ioppolo, G. (2020). Ecological
indicators of smart urban metabolism: A review of the literature on international
standards. Ecological Indicators, 118, Article 106808.
Dameri, R. P., Benevolo, C., Veglianti, E., & Li, Y. (2019). Understanding smart cities as a
glocal strategy: A comparison between Italy and China. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 142, 26–41.
DEMOGRAPHIA. (2022). Demographics development impacts market research & urban
policy. Demographia. Retrieved 1st September 2022from http://www.demographia.
com/.
Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In D. A. Buchanan, &
& A. Bryman (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational research methods (pp.
671–689). Sage Publications Ltd.
Dirks, S., & Keeling, M. (2009). A vision of smarter cities: How cities can lead the way
into a prosperous and sustainable future. IBM Institute for business Value, 8.
Duvier, C., Anand, P. B., & Oltean-Dumbrava, C. (2018). Data quality and governance in
a UK social housing initiative: Implications for smart sustainable cities. Sustainable
Cities and Society, 39, 358–365.
Ekman, P., Röndell, J., & Yang, Y. (2019). Exploring smart cities and market
transformations from a service-dominant logic perspective. Sustainable Cities and
Society, 51, Article 101731.
Esposito, G., Clement, J., Mora, L., & Crutzen, N. (2021). One size does not fit all:
Framing smart city policy narratives within regional socio-economic contexts in
Brussels and Wallonia. Cities, 118, Article 103329.
Fanning, A. L., O’Neill, D. W., Hickel, J., & Roux, N (2022). The social shortfall and
ecological overshoot of nations. Nature Sustainability, 5(1), 26–36.
Fernandez-Anez, V., Fernández-Güell, J. M., & Giffinger, R. (2018). Smart City
implementation and discourses: An integrated conceptual model. The case of Vienna.
Cities, 78, 4–16.
Ferraris, A., Belyaeva, Z., & Bresciani, S. (2020). The role of universities in the Smart City
innovation: Multistakeholder integration and engagement perspectives. Journal of
Business Research, 119, 163–171.
Goel, R. K., Yadav, C. S., & Vishnoi, S. (2021). Self-sustainable smart cities: Socio-spatial
society using participative bottom-up and cognitive top-down approach. Cities, 118,
Article 103370.
Giffinger, R., & Gudrun, H. (2010). Smart cities ranking: an effective instrument for the
positioning of the cities? ACE: Architecture, City and Environment, 4(12), 7–26.
Grimaldi, D., & Fernandez, V. (2017). The alignment of University curricula with the
building of a Smart City: A case study from Barcelona. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 123, 298–306.
Grossi, G., & Trunova, O. (2021). Are UN SDGs useful for capturing multiple values of
smart city? Cities, 114, Article 103193.
Haarstad, H., & Wathne, M. W. (2019). Are smart city projects catalyzing urban energy
sustainability? Energy Policy, 129, 918–925.
Hollands, R. G. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? Intelligent, progressive
or entrepreneurial? City, 12(3), 303–320.
Huovila, A., Bosch, P., & Airaksinen, M. (2019). Comparative analysis of standardized
indicators for Smart sustainable cities: What indicators and standards to use and
when? Cities, 89, 141–153.
Huston, S., Rahimzad, R., & Parsa, A. (2015). ‘Smart’sustainable urban regeneration:
Institutions, quality and financial innovation. Cities, 48, 66–75.
Jaekel, M. (2015). Smart City wird Realität: Wegweiser für neue Urbanitäten in der
Digitalmoderne. Springer-Verlag.
Jiang, H., Jiang, P., Wang, D., & Wu, J. (2021). Can smart city construction facilitate
green total factor productivity? A quasi-natural experiment based on China’s pilot
smart city. Sustainable Cities and Society, 69, Article 102809.
Y. Dai et al.
Khan, H. H., Malik, M. N., Zafar, R., Goni, F. A., Chofreh, A. G., Klemeš, J. J., &
Alotaibi, Y. (2020). Challenges for sustainable smart city development: A conceptual
framework. Sustainable Development, 28(5), 1507–1518.
Kong, L., & Woods, O. (2021). Scaling smartness,(de) provincializing the city? The
ASEAN Smart Cities Network and the translational politics of technocratic
regionalism. Cities, 117, Article 103326.
Kumar, H., Singh, M. K., Gupta, M. P., & Madaan, J. (2020). Moving towards smart cities:
Solutions that lead to the smart city transformation framework. Technological
forecasting and social change, 153, Article 119281.
Kummitha, R. K. R. (2018). Entrepreneurial urbanism and technological panacea: Why
Smart City planning needs to go beyond corporate visioning? Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 137, 330–339.
Kummitha, R. K. R., & Crutzen, N. (2017). How do we understand smart cities? An
evolutionary perspective. Cities, 67, 43–52.
Kuriakose, P. N., & Philip, S. (2021). City profile: Kochi, city region-Planning measures to
make Kochi smart and creative. Cities, 118, Article 103307.
Lam, P. T., & Yang, W. (2020). Factors influencing the consideration of Public-Private
Partnerships (PPP) for smart city projects: Evidence from Hong Kong. Cities, 99,
Article 102606.
Lazaroiu, G. C., & Roscia, M. (2012). Definition methodology for the smart cities model.
Energy, 47(1), 326–332.
Lebrument, N., Zumbo-Lebrument, C., Rochette, C., & Roulet, T. J. (2021). Triggering
participation in smart cities: Political efficacy, public administration satisfaction and
sense of belonging as drivers of citizens’ intention. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 171, Article 120938.
Leite, E. (2022). Innovation networks for social impact: An empirical study on multi-
actor collaboration in projects for smart cities. Journal of Business Research, 139,
325–337.
Leroux, E., & Pupion, P. C. (2022). Smart territories and IoT adoption by local
authorities: A question of trust, efficiency, and relationship with the citizen-user-
taxpayer. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, Article 121195.
Letaifa, S. B. (2015). How to strategize smart cities: Revealing the SMART model. Journal
of Business Research, 68(7), 1414–1419.
Levy, Y., & Ellis, T. J. (2006). A systems approach to conduct an effective literature
review in support of information systems research. Informing Science. 9.
Liang, X., Shetty, S., & Tosh, D. (2018). Exploring the attack surfaces in blockchain
enabled smart cities. In 2018 IEEE International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2) (pp.
1–8). IEEE.
Lim, C., Kim, K. J., & Maglio, P. P. (2018). Smart cities with big data: Reference models,
challenges, and considerations. Cities, 82, 86–99.
Lim, Y., Edelenbos, J., & Gianoli, A. (2019). Identifying the results of smart city
development: Findings from systematic literature review. Cities, 95, Article 102397.
Macke, J., Casagrande, R. M., Sarate, J. A. R., & Silva, K. A. (2018). Smart city and
quality of life: Citizens’ perception in a Brazilian case study. Journal of cleaner
production, 182, 717–726.
Macke, J., Sarate, J. A. R., & de Atayde Moschen, S. (2019). Smart sustainable cities
evaluation and sense of community. Journal of Cleaner production, 239, Article
118103.
Madsen, A. K. (2018). Data in the smart city: How incongruent frames challenge the
transition from ideal to practice. Big Data & Society, 5(2), Article
2053951718802321.
Manupati, V. K., Ramkumar, M., & Samanta, D. (2018). A multi-criteria decision making
approach for the urban renewal in Southern India. Sustainable Cities and Society, 42,
471–481.
Marchetti, D., Oliveira, R., & Figueira, A. R. (2019). Are global north smart city models
capable to assess Latin American cities? A model and indicators for a new context.
Cities, 92, 197–207.
Marrone, M., & Hammerle, M. (2018). Smart cities: A review and analysis of
stakeholders’ literature. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 60(3), 197–213.
Masik, G., Sagan, I., & Scott, J. W. (2021). Smart City strategies and new urban
development policies in the Polish context. Cities, 108, Article 102970.
Mattoni, B., Gugliermetti, F., & Bisegna, F. (2015). A multilevel method to assess and
design the renovation and integration of Smart Cities. Sustainable Cities and Society,
15, 105–119.
Mattoni, B., Nardecchia, F., & Bisegna, F. (2019). Towards the development of a smart
district: The application of an holistic planning approach. Sustainable Cities and
Society, 48, Article 101570.
Mattoni, B., Pompei, L., Losilla, J. C., & Bisegna, F. (2020). Planning smart cities:
Comparison of two quantitative multicriteria methods applied to real case studies.
Sustainable Cities and Society, 60, Article 102249.
Mayaud, J. R., Tran, M., Pereira, R. H., & Nuttall, R. (2019). Future access to essential
services in a growing smart city: The case of Surrey, British Columbia. Computers,
Environment and Urban Systems, 73, 1–15.
Mondschein, J., Clark-Ginsberg, A., & Kuehn, A. (2021). Smart cities as large
technological systems: Overcoming organizational challenges in smart cities through
collective action. Sustainable Cities and Society, 67, Article 102730.
Monteiro, C. S., Costa, C., Pina, A., Santos, M. Y., & Ferrão, P. (2018). An urban building
database (UBD) supporting a smart city information system. Energy and Buildings,
158, 244–260.
Mora, L., Deakin, M., & Reid, A. (2019a). Combining co-citation clustering and text-
based analysis to reveal the main development paths of smart cities. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 56–69.
Mora, L., Deakin, M., & Reid, A. (2019b). Strategic principles for smart city development:
A multiple case study analysis of European best practices. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 142, 70–97.
28
Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112
Mosannenzadeh, F., Di Nucci, M. R., & Vettorato, D. (2017). Identifying and prioritizing
barriers to implementation of smart energy city projects in Europe: An empirical
approach. Energy Policy, 105, 191–201.
Musiolik, J., Kohler, A., Vögeli, P., Lobsiger-Kägi, E., Müller, L., & Carabias-Hütter, V.
(2020a). Smart city: Guide to the implementation of smart city initiatives in Switzerland.
Bern: Swiss Federal Office of Energy.
Musiolik, J., Müller, L., & Carabias, V. (2020b). Systemic innovation strategies of smart
cities: governance and implementation strategies of four pioneer SC initiatives.
Nahiduzzaman, K. M., Holland, M., Sikder, S. K., Shaw, P., Hewage, K., & Sadiq, R.
(2021). Urban transformation toward a smart city: An e-commerce–induced path-
dependent analysis. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 147(1), Article
04020060.
Nakano, S., & Washizu, A. (2021). Will smart cities enhance the social capital of
residents? The importance of smart neighborhood management. Cities, 115, Article
103244.
Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of
technology, people, and institutions. In Proceedings of the 12th annual international
digital government research conference: digital government innovation in challenging times
(pp. 282–291).
Neirotti, P., De Marco, A., Cagliano, A. C., Mangano, G., & Scorrano, F. (2014). Current
trends in Smart City initiatives: Some stylized facts. Cities, 38, 25–36.
Nicolas, C., Kim, J., & Chi, S. (2020). Quantifying the dynamic effects of smart city
development enablers using structural equation modeling. Sustainable Cities and
Society, 53, Article 101916.
Nicolas, C., Kim, J., & Chi, S. (2021). Natural language processing-based characterization
of top-down communication in smart cities for enhancing citizen alignment.
Sustainable Cities and Society, 66, Article 102674.
Nunes, S. A., Ferreira, F. A., Govindan, K., & Pereira, L. F. (2021). Cities go smart!”: A
system dynamics-based approach to smart city conceptualization. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 313, Article 127683.
Obringer, R., & Nateghi, R. (2021). What makes a city ‘smart’in the Anthropocene? A
critical review of smart cities under climate change. Sustainable Cities and Society, 75,
Article 103278.
Parmentola, A., Petrillo, A., Tutore, I., & De Felice, F. (2022). Is blockchain able to
enhance environmental sustainability? A systematic review and research agenda
from the perspective of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Business Strategy and
the Environment, 31(1), 194–217.
Paroutis, S., Bennett, M., & Heracleous, L. (2014). A strategic view on smart city
technology: The case of IBM Smarter Cities during a recession. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 89, 262–272.
Pieper, D., & Puljak, L. (2021). Language restrictions in systematic reviews should not be
imposed in the search strategy but in the eligibility criteria if necessary. Journal of
Clinical Epidemiology, 132, 146–147.
Qayyum, S., Ullah, F., Al-Turjman, F., & Mojtahedi, M. (2021). Managing smart cities
through six sigma DMADICV method: A review-based conceptual framework.
Sustainable Cities and Society, 72, Article 103022.
Ramirez, F., Palominos, P., Camargo, M., & Grimaldi, D. (2021). A new methodology to
support smartness at the district level of metropolitan areas in emerging economies:
The case of Santiago de Chile. Sustainable Cities and Society, 67, Article 102713.
Ramu, S. P., Boopalan, P., Pham, Q. V., Maddikunta, P. K. R., Huynh-The, T., Alazab, M.,
& Gadekallu, T. R. (2022). Federated learning enabled digital twins for smart cities:
Concepts, recent advances, and future directions. Sustainable Cities and Society, 79,
Article 103663.
Razmjoo, A., Østergaard, P. A., Denai, M., Nezhad, M. M., & Mirjalili, S. (2021). Effective
policies to overcome barriers in the development of smart cities. Energy Research &
Social Science, 79, Article 102175.
Ruhlandt, R. W. S. (2018). The governance of smart cities: A systematic literature review.
Cities, 81, 1–23.
Ruhlandt, R. W. S., Levitt, R., Jain, R., & Hall, D. (2020). One approach does not fit all
(smart) cities: Causal recipes for cities’ use of “data and analytics. Cities, 104, Article
102800.
Sakuma, N., Trencher, G., Yarime, M., & Onuki, M. (2021). A comparison of smart city
research and practice in Sweden and Japan: Trends and opportunities identified
from a literature review and co-occurrence network analysis. Sustainability Science,
16(6), 1777–1796.
Schiavone, F., Paolone, F., & Mancini, D. (2019). Business model innovation for urban
smartization. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 210–219.
Secinaro, S., Brescia, V., Calandra, D., & Biancone, P. (2021). Towards a hybrid model for
the management of smart city initiatives. Cities, 116, Article 103278.
Shamsuzzoha, A., Nieminen, J., Piya, S., & Rutledge, K (2021). Smart city for sustainable
environment: A comparison of participatory strategies from Helsinki, Singapore and
London. Cities, 114, Article 103194.
Sharifi, A., Pathak, M., Joshi, C., & He, B. J. (2021). A systematic review of the health co-
benefits of urban climate change adaptation. Sustainable Cities and Society, 74, Article
103190.
Shmelev, S. E., & Shmeleva, I. A. (2019). Multidimensional sustainability benchmarking
for smart megacities. Cities, 92, 134–163.
Siemens, G., & Tittenberger, P. (2009). Handbook of emerging technologies for learning (p.
65). Canada: University of Manitoba.
Silva, B. N., Khan, M., & Han, K. (2018). Towards sustainable smart cities: A review of
trends, architectures, components, and open challenges in smart cities. Sustainable
Cities and Society, 38, 697–713.
Simonofski, A., Serral Asensio, E., De Smedt, J., & Snoeck, M. (2019). Hearing the voice
of citizens in smart city design: The citivoice framework. Business & Information
Systems Engineering, 61(6), 665–678.
Y. Dai et al.
Soyata, T., Habibzadeh, H., Ekenna, C., Nussbaum, B., & Lozano, J. (2019). Smart city in
crisis: Technology and policy concerns. Sustainable Cities and Society, 50, Article
101566.
Siokas, G., Kelaidi, V., & Tsakanikas, A. (2022). The smart city as a hub for nourishing
public-private partnerships. Sustainable Cities and Society, 76, Article 103466.
Siokas, G., Tsakanikas, A., & Siokas, E. (2021). Implementing smart city strategies in
Greece: Appetite for success. Cities, 108, Article 102938.
Sodiq, A., Baloch, A. A., Khan, S. A., Sezer, N., Mahmoud, S., Jama, M., & Abdelaal, A.
(2019). Towards modern sustainable cities: Review of sustainability principles and
trends. Journal of Cleaner Production, 227, 972–1001.
Sokolov, A., Veselitskaya, N., Carabias, V., & Yildirim, O. (2019). Scenario-based
identification of key factors for smart cities development policies. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 148, Article 119729.
Stratigea, A., Papadopoulou, C. A., & Panagiotopoulou, M. (2015). Tools and
technologies for planning the development of smart cities. Journal of Urban
Technology, 22(2), 43–62.
The World Bank. 2022. Overview of urban development. [online] Available at: <htt
ps://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/urbandevelopment/overview> [Accessed 13th
October 2022].
Thuzar, M. (2011). Urbanization in Southeast Asia: developing smart cities for the
future?. Regional Outlook, 96.
Tomor, Z., Przeybilovicz, E., & Leleux, C. (2021). Smart governance in institutional
context: An in-depth analysis of Glasgow, Utrecht, and Curitiba. Cities, 114, Article
103195.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British
Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.
Ullah, F., Qayyum, S., Thaheem, M. J., Al-Turjman, F., & Sepasgozar, S. M. (2021). Risk
management in sustainable smart cities governance: A TOE framework. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 167, Article 120743.
van den Bosch, M., & Sang, Å. O. (2017). Urban natural environments as nature-based
solutions for improved public health–A systematic review of reviews. Environmental
Research, 158, 373–384.
van den Buuse, D., & Kolk, A. (2019). An exploration of smart city approaches by
international ICT firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 220–234.
Wang, C. H., Steinfeld, E., Maisel, J. L., & Kang, B. (2021). Is your smart city inclusive?
Evaluating proposals from the US Department of Transportation’s Smart City
Challenge. Sustainable Cities and Society, 74, Article 103148.
Wang, Y., Tosh, P., Lee, J., Lee, Y., Henderson, S., Song, S., & Choi, B. Y. (2018). An
interdisciplinary educational project connecting smart city technology with local
29
Sustainable Cities and Society 101 (2024) 105112
communities. In 2018 IEEE International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2) (pp. 1–2).
IEEE.
Wataya, E., & Shaw, R. (2019). Measuring the value and the role of soft assets in smart
city development. Cities, 94, 106–115.
Wu, W. N. (2020). Determinants of citizen-generated data in a smart city: Analysis of 311
system user behavior. Sustainable Cities and Society, 59, Article 102167.
Wu, Y., Zhang, W., Shen, J., Mo, Z., & Peng, Y. (2018). Smart city with Chinese
characteristics against the background of big data: Idea, action and risk. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 173, 60–66.
Yang, Z., & Zhao, Y. (2021). Research on the development level evaluation of smart city
in China. Annals of Operations Research, 1–16.
Yeh, H. (2017). The effects of successful ICT-based smart city services: From citizens’
perspectives. Government Information Quarterly, 34(3), 556–565.
Yigitcanlar, T., Degirmenci, K., Butler, L., & Desouza, K. C. (2022). What are the key
factors affecting smart city transformation readiness? Evidence from Australian
cities. Cities, 120, Article 103434.
Yigitcanlar, T., Kamruzzaman, M., Buys, L., Ioppolo, G., Sabatini-Marques, J., da
Costa, E. M., & Yun, J. J. (2018). Understanding ‘smart cities’: Intertwining
development drivers with desired outcomes in a multidimensional framework. Cities,
81, 145–160.
Yigitcanlar, T., Kamruzzaman, M., Foth, M., Sabatini-Marques, J., da Costa, E., &
Ioppolo, G. (2019). Can cities become smart without being sustainable? A systematic
review of the literature. Sustainable Cities and Society, 45, 348–365.
Yigitcanlar, T., & Lee, S. H. (2014). Korean ubiquitous-eco-city: A smart-sustainable
urban form or a branding hoax? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 89,
100–114.
Yuan, Y., Lu, Y., Chow, T. E., Ye, C., Alyaqout, A., & Liu, Y. (2020). The missing parts
from social media–enabled smart cities: Who, where, when, and what? Annals of the
American Association of Geographers, 110(2), 462–475.
Zhang, Y. (2021). Game and coordination of diverse benefits in smart city PPP projects
based on evolutionary game. Annals of Operations Research, 1–24.
Zhao, F., Fashola, O. I., Olarewaju, T. I., & Onwumere, I. (2021). Smart city research: A
holistic and state-of-the-art literature review. Cities, 119, Article 103406.
Zhu, H., Shen, L., & Ren, Y. (2022). How can smart city shape a happier life? The
mechanism for developing a Happiness Driven Smart City. Sustainable Cities and
Society, 80, Article 103791.
Zuzul, T. W. (2019). Matter battles”: Cognitive representations, boundary objects, and
the failure of collaboration in two smart cities. Academy of Management Journal, 62
(3), 739–764.