Leonidas Anthopoulos and Panos Fitsilis
term to calculate the intelligence that is produced in urban spaces, while others to depict urban areas that offer smart e‐services or encourage the generation of intelligence. The identified alternative approaches generates eight classification groups for smart cities. Another finding confirms that most cases did not retain their initial approach, but they have been updated to other( s).( Figure 1) illustrates the evolution timeline of the smart cities, where five of the smart city categories still exist.
In order to answer the third question of this paper regarding smart city evolution roadmaps, the provided e‐ services are combined in eight e‐service groups( Table 3). Technology roadmapping for these e‐service groups shows that smart cities have not evolved to all particular approaches, but five path‐dependent roadmaps can be observed( Figure 2). This final finding can be interpreted in the following hypotheses:( a) not all smart city approaches are suitable to be followed by all urban areas, but various parameters could determine to which direction a smart city must evolve. However, it is beyond the purpose of this paper to determine these variants.( b) Not all approaches have attracted smart city evolution, but environmental e‐service provision appears the“ peak” in recent evolution, while smart cities that provide e‐business, broadband and transportation services have also been popular.
These two hypotheses, when they will be confirmed could provide answers regarding smart city viability. Viability stands as“ capability of successful operation”( Oxford Dictionary, 2012). This can be interpreted as the“ feasibility and the operational continuity of an organization, a business, a facility or a project’ s outcome in political, social, legal, environmental, economical, and financial terms”( Salman et al., 2007). Viability should not be confused with sustainability, which can be defined as“ the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”( United Nations, 1987). Smart city viability is questioned and is not secured, although the project finishes in time, on budget and aligned to its requirements.
Viability has become crucial for municipal decision makers; San Francisco and Chicago mobile cities have been questioned for their feasibility( New Millennium Research Council, 2007); Iowa Communications Network and California CALNET system have failed to secure incomes; Trikala has shortened its scope; or have changed their priorities in order to sustain( i. e., Amsterdam). In Tampere, decision makers prioritized outsourcing for infrastructure deployment and for e‐service delivery in order to sustain, promoted only the self‐sustained e‐ services, while the smart city occupies a significant amount of ICT professionals and researchers in order to secure viability via innovation.
From the viability point of view, various determinants have to be considered( Salman et al., 2007): geographical, financial, legal, cultural, technological, social and environmental are crucial for projects’ viability and various indices have to be determined for each of these variants. In this context, the five path‐dependent roadmaps that were extracted in this paper align to technological determinants and could support decision makers in dealing with smart city’ s prospect. Moreover, although five different smart city approaches exist today( Figure 1), the eco‐city has mostly attracted the evolution.
5. Conclusions – future thoughts
This paper confirmed that smart city is a“ booming” phenomenon, while the term smart city is confusing. An investigative review of 31 cities identified eight classification approaches, five of which are still active, while most of the investigated cases have experienced updates from their initial approach.
Furthermore, technology roadmapping on the examined cases returned interesting outcomes, such as five path‐dependent roadmaps for smart city evolution. This paper did not try to recognize the reasons lying behind these paths, but it hypothesized the requirement for viability. Since viability is influenced by a number a parameters, these path‐dependent roadmaps can be useful for municipal decision makers in determining their smart city prospect. Some future thoughts concern exploration of the variants that influence smart city evolution and of the factors that make eco‐city the most popular, and the determination of viability indices for smart city.
34