See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257177034

Definition methodology for the smart cities model

Article  in  Energy · November 2012

DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2012.09.028

CITATIONS READS

320 12,264

2 authors:

George Cristian Lazaroiu M. Roscia

Polytechnic University of Bucharest University of Bergamo
119 PUBLICATIONS   1,241 CITATIONS    91 PUBLICATIONS   972 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

electronic power converters View project

smart building, smart cities, home automation, IoT, View project

All content following this page was uploaded by M. Roscia on 11 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Energy 47 (2012) 326e332

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Definition methodology for the smart cities model

George Cristian Lazaroiu a, *, Mariacristina Roscia b,1
a
Department of Power Systems, University Politehnica of Bucharest, Splaiul Independentei 313, 060042 Bucharest, Romania
b
Dipartimento di Progettazione e Tecnologie, Università di Bergamo, Via Marconi 6, 24044 Bergamo, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Nowadays, the large and small districts are proposing a new city model, called “the smart city”, which
Received 19 March 2012 represents a community of average technology size, interconnected and sustainable, comfortable,
Received in revised form attractive and secure. The landscape requirements and the solutions to local problems are the critical
8 September 2012
factors. The cities consume 75% of worldwide energy production and generate 80% of CO2 emissions.
Accepted 10 September 2012
Available online 5 October 2012
Thus, a sustainable urban model, “the smart city”, is sustained by the European Commission. In this
paper, a model for computing “the smart city” indices is proposed. The chosen indicators are not
homogeneous, and contain high amount of information. The paper deals with the computation of
Keywords:
Energy
assigned weights for the considered indicators. The proposed approach uses a procedure based on fuzzy
Sustainability logic and defines a model that allows us to estimate “the smart city”, in order to access European funding.
Smart city model The proposed innovative system results in a more extended comprehension and simple use. Thus, the
Fuzzy logic model could help in policy making process as starting point of discussion between stakeholders, as well
IEE project funding as citizens in final decision of adoption measures and best evaluated options.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction possible investments is required. The achievement of smart city

The cities consume a large amount of energy, demanding more
than 75% of world energy production and generating 80% of
greenhouse gas emissions. Nowadays, the large and small districts
are proposing a new city model, called “the smart city”, which
represents a community of average technology size, interconnected
and sustainable, comfortable, attractive and secure. The sustainable
urban model is incentivized by the European Commission using the
strategic energy technology plan.
For developing “the smart cities”, an agreement between
various districts has been established, interacting directly the
European Commission with more European districts. The districts
have to elaborate and develop action plans for sustainable energy
before rigorously established deadlines. The sustainable energy
action plans establish the development of a sustainable strategy,
which contributes within each district to the general objective of
the 2020 European strategy (20% reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions, 20% improvement in energy efficiency and 20% of
renewable in EU energy consumption) [1e4].
The smart city is a new way of leaving and considering the cities.
The optimization of available and new resources, as well as of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ40 722808709.
E-mail addresses: clazaroiu@yahoo.com (G.C. Lazaroiu), cristina.roscia@unibg.it
(M. Roscia).
1
Tel.: þ39 3334598724.
objective can be reached through the support of various informa-
tion and communications technologies. These can be integrated in
a solution considering the electricity, the water and the gas
consumptions, as well as heating and cooling systems, public
safety, wastes management and mobility.
A model to evaluate the environmental performance of urban
energy use planning is presented in [5]. The fuzzy method is used
to determine the relative importance of the indicators and sub-
indicators. The sustainability and development assessment of
urban energy systems is analyzed in [6]. A fuzzy logic approach for
measuring the sustainability of an urban energy system is
introduced.
A fuzzy methodology for modeling and representing eco-
building design indicators, considering environment, economy
and society aspects, is proposed in [7]. In Ref. [8], using fuzzy
method approach to assess the urban ecotourism, the results
revealed that economic factors can have lower role than the social
and environmental factors. In addition, the study reinforces the
significant position of community participation while promoting
urban ecotourism. A multicriteria decision making approach for
selecting sustainability transportation systems under partial or
incomplete information is presented in [9]. Fuzzy method is used to
generate aggregate scores for sustainability assessment and selec-
tion of best alternative.
The environmental impact assessment based on fuzzy logic for
explaining and clarifying the practical application of the method is

0360-5442/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.09.028
 Author's personal copy
G.C. Lazaroiu, M. Roscia / Energy 47 (2012) 326e332
proposed in [10]. The fuzzy logic approach, referring to sustainable
development in agricultural landscapes, for evaluating single
agricultural production practices by means of environmental,
economic, and social indicators is used in [11].
The paper deals with a fuzzy logic based model for evaluating
the smart cities. An application based on weights calculated with
fuzzy logic for the cities of Italy is conducted. The results allow us to
estimate “the smart city” in accordance with the established
objectives.
2. Funding under the Intelligent Energy e Europe (IEE)
programme
The European Union has set targets to achieve clean and secure
energy for tomorrow. An optimal use of available tools is necessary
to meet these targets [12]. A wide range of technologies and
methods are available to improve energy efficiency, transform
renewable into viable energy sources and reduce emissions.
However, market conditions prevent them from reaching their full
potential. This is where the Intelligent Energy e Europe programme
comes in. The Intelligent Energy e Europe (IEE) programme is
giving a boost to clean and sustainable solutions and supports their
use and dissemination, as well as the Europe-wide exchange of
related knowledge and know-how.
The projects aim to fulfill the three main objectives:
- promoting energy efficiency and encouraging the rational use
of energy sources;
- increasing the use of new and renewable energy sources as
well as encouraging energy diversification;
- stimulating energy efficiency and renewables in the field of
transport.
Intelligent Energy e Europe (IEE) offers support to organizations
willing to improve energy sustainability. The programme, launched
in 2003 by the European Commission, is part of a broad support to
create an energy-intelligent future. In addition, supports EU energy
efficiency and renewable energy policies, with the goal to reach the
EU 2020 targets (20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, 20%
improvement in energy efficiency and 20% of renewable in EU
energy consumption). Intelligent Energy e Europe creates better
conditions for a more sustainable energy future in areas like
renewable energy, energy-efficient buildings, industry, consumer
products and transport. Achieving this, Europe will also boost its
competitiveness, security of energy supply and innovation
standing. The programme, available until 2013, is open to all EU
Member States, plus Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Croatia and the
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. A budget of 730 millions V
is available to fund projects and implement European portals,
facilities and initiatives.
3. Smart cities
The European Commission promoted “the smart city” calls
regarding energy efficiency, renewable energy and green mobility
for the large urban cities [13]. In this way, considering the invest-
ments in low greenhouse gas emission technologies, a large
opportunity for the European industry to become a leader in high
efficient and clean technology is available. Against the background
of economic and technological changes caused by the globalization
and the integration process, cities in Europe face the challenge of
combining competitiveness and sustainable urban development
simultaneously. Very evidently, this challenge is likely to have an
impact on issues of Urban Quality such as housing, economy,
culture, social and environmental conditions. However, this project
327
does not deal with the leading European metropolises, but with
medium-sized cities and their perspectives for development. Even
though the large majority of the urban population lives in such
cities, the main focus of urban research tends to be on the ‘global’
metropolises. As a result, the challenges of medium-sized cities,
which can be rather different, remain unexplored to a certain
degree. Medium-sized cities, which have to face the competition of
the larger metropolises on corresponding issues, appear to be less
well equipped in terms of critical mass, resources and organizing
capacity.
To enforce the development and achieve a good position, these
cities have to point on identifying their strengths and chances for
positioning and ensuring the comparative advantages in certain
key resources, against other cities of the same level. City rankings
are a tool to identify these assets. Nowadays, even they are quite
common, current rankings are very different in their approaches or
methods. Mostly, they have quite specific aims focused on share-
holder interests. Also, the local governments discuss ranking results
in public, if the own city is not highly ranked. Due to different
interests behind rankings, used indicators and methodology
approaches, it is also normal that one city is ranked very different in
various rankings. Additionally, medium-sized cities are often not
considered when they are not recognized on a global level, which
would actually premise already a very good position. For the
ranking, a city sample selection is necessary. According to the
project’s aim and its duration, a feasible sample should fulfill two
criteria:
- cities should be of medium size and
- they should be covered by accessible and relevant databases.
The most comprehensive list of cities in Europe is provided by
the Espon 1.1.1 project [14]. Almost cities 1600 cities in the Espon
space (EU27 þ NO þ CH) are covered, with data on population and
some functional data. For these reasons, three criteria are elabo-
rated on the basis of these 1600 cities:
- urban population between 100,000 and 500,000 (to obtain
medium-sized cities);
- at least 1 University (to exclude cities with weak knowledge
basis);
- catchment area less than 1,500,000 inhabitants (to exclude
cities which are dominated by a bigger city).
Additionally, the fact if a city is covered by the database of the
Urban Audit e a European wide database on cities e is decisive
for the benchmark, as for reasons of data availability. Hence, 94
cities remained. After a further adaptation and elaboration of
cities, and data accessibility and quality, 70 cities are chosen for
the sample [13].
4. Reference standardization and aggregation
This section reports the present system used for evaluating the
smart cities. This model leads to possible unsatisfactory results. In
order to compare the different indicators, the standardization of
values is required. One method to standardize the values is using
the z-transformation [13]:
xi  x
zi ¼ (1)
s
Through this method, all indicator values are transformed into
standardized values with an average of 0 and a standard deviation
of 1. For obtaining the results on the level of factors, characteristics
 Author's personal copy

328 G.C. Lazaroiu, M. Roscia / Energy 47 (2012) 326e332

and each city final result, the values aggregation on the indicator A perspective that can be misleading in the selection of smart
level is required. For indicators aggregation, the coverage rate of city indicators is to consider the smart city as measurable in a single
each indicator is considered. A certain result from an indicator, way. The relationship between smart city and human decisions is
covering all 70 cities, weights therefore a little more than from an interconnected. It is now impossible to assert that there exists
indicator covering only 60 cities. In addition to this small correc- a difference between objective and subjective indicators. A set of 18
tion, the results are aggregated on all levels without any weighting. smart city indicators are reported in Table 1. Since the codification
The aggregation is done additive, but divided through the number in categories of smart city indicators encloses in itself some
of values added. That allows including also cities that do not cover elements of arbitrariness, the technical definition of an indicator
all indicators. Their results are calculated with the available values. justifies its use and purpose based on its characteristics.
Still, it is necessary to provide a good coverage over all cities to Some essential terms for the predisposition of smart city indi-
receive reasonable results. For the 70 cities and 74 indicators, cators are:
a coverage rate of 87% is achieved.
A “smart city” is a city well performing in 6 characteristics. a) identification of the space and time context that is taken as
These characteristics are built on the ‘smart’ combination of reference for the survey of the database;
endowments and activities of self-decisive, independent and aware b) decision on the type of information that must be transferred,
citizens. and choice of a method to synthesize the information;
Indicators Weighting c) investigation of some property that would characterize the
a) Smart economy definition of a smart city indicator.
Innovative spirit 3 17%
Entrepreneurship 2 17% Therefore, it is possible to equip the policy maker with infor-
Economic image & trademarks 1 17% mation for “ready consultation”, to provide him the information
Productivity 1 17%
Flexibility of labor market 2 17%
that puts him in situation to attend and to estimate the effects of
International embeddedness 3 17% the intervention.
Ability to transform 0 0%
Total 12 100% 6. Applications of fuzzy logic for evaluating smart cities
b) Smart mobility
Local accessibility 3 25%
(Inter-)national accessibility 1 25% The “smart cities” classification with the help of the z-trans-
Availability of ICT-infrastructure 2 25% formation appears inadequate to evaluate the indicators. In addi-
Sustainable, innovative and safe transport systems 3 25% tion, the z-transformation does not provide more objectiveness to
Total 9 100%
the obtained results. A fuzzy logic based model for evaluating the
c) Smart environment
Attractiveness of natural conditions 2 25%
smart cities is proposed in the present paper.
Pollution 3 25% Typically the base structure for a smart city plan is a matrix
Environmental protection 2 25% expressed with [15]:
Sustainable resource management 3 25%
Total 10 100% G1 . GJ
d) Smart people
A1 411 . 41J
Level of qualification 4 14% (2)
Affinity to lifelong learning 3 14%
« « «
Social and ethnic plurality 2 14% AI 4I1 . 4IJ
Flexibility 1 14%
Creativity 1 14% where Gj indicates an objective or a smart city characteristic;
Cosmopolitanism/open-mindedness 3 14%
G ¼ {G1, G2,., GJ} is a set of J smart city characteristics, Ai is an
Participation in public life 2 14%
Total 20 100% alternative or option and A ¼ {A1, A2,., AJ} is a set of mutually
e) Smart living exclusive plans; 4ij indicates the result of the plan Ai regarding the
Cultural facilities 3 14% objective Gj. Generally weights {w1, w2,., wJ} are introduced to
Health conditions 4 14% represent the different value of various opportunities.
Individual safety 3 14%
Housing quality 3 14%
Education facilities 3 14%
Table 1
Touristic attractiveness 2 14%
Smart city indicators.
Social cohesion 2 14%
Total 20 100% Indicators
f) Smart governance
1. Pollution.
Participation in decision-making 4 33%
2. Innovative spirits
Public and social services 3 33%
3. CO2
Transparent governance 2 33%
4. Transparent governance
Political strategies & perspectives 0 0%
5. Sustainable resource management
9 100%
6. Separated littery
7. Education facilities
8. Health conditions.
The objective is to correctly establish the value to assign to an 9. Sustainable, innovative and safe public transportation
indicator. The assigned value provides a synthetic description of the 10. Pedestrian areas
reality, which in practice is difficulty established. 11. Cycle lanes
12. Green areas
13. Production of municipal solid waste
5. Smart city indicators: uncertainty in defining them 14. GWh household
15. Fuels
An International and European agreement on smart city indi- 16. Political strategies & perspectives
cators has not been found, because smartness is not always easily 17. Availability of ICT-infrastructure
18. Flexibility of labor market
measurable.
 Author's personal copy

G.C. Lazaroiu, M. Roscia / Energy 47 (2012) 326e332 329

The following method allows for the assignment to m alterna- Table 2

tives A1,., Am their weights. Therefore n experts or judges J1,., Jn Criteria matrix.

are used to provide information based on the C1,., Ck criteria [16]. Criteria J1 J2 J3 J4 J5
The information assigned by judges are fuzzy trapezoid numbers Smart economy 4 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 6 7 7 8 4 5 6 7 6 6 7 7
given by2 Smart environment 6 7 7 8 5 5 5 5 7 8 8 9 5 5 7 7 7 8 8 8
Smart energy and 8 8 9 9 6 7 8 9 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 9 6 6 6 6
ða=b; g=dÞ (3) mobility
Smart governance 4 5 6 7 5 5 6 6 4 6 7 7 5 5 6 6 5 6 6 7

where a, b, g, d are real numbers that satisfy the relation

a  b  g  d, [17].
The weights of the indicators are given by the followings steps: nk ¼ ðεk =zk ; hk =qk Þ (12)
1. The judges express their opinion both in terms of the criteria
of evaluation of the indicators and in terms of indicator’s impor- then the indicator weight can be considered by (12):
tance relative to every criteria in the interval of values [0, L]. The   h

i
1
matrix of criteria obtained is wi ¼ 5 mi1 5n1 4/4 miK 5nK (13)
K$L
3. Once the valueðakij ; bkj Þ or ðmik ; nk Þ is obtained, the weights can
be expressed as:
 
Wi ½L1 ; L2 =X ; Yi=Z ½U ; U  (14)
i i 1 2
where:


where the diagram of the membership function is [18]:
bkj ¼ εkj =zkj ; hkj =qkj (5)
 zero to the left of Wi,
and the alternatives matrix is
L1 $y2 þ L2 $y þ Wi ¼ x in ½Wi ; Xi  (15)

 horizontal line by (Xi, 1) to (Yi, 1),

U1 $y2 þ U2 $y þ Zi ¼ x in ½Yi ; Zi  (16)

for every criteria Ck(1  k  K), and where akij is expressed as:


akij ¼ akij =bkij ; gkij =dkij (7)  zero to the right of Zi

2. The weight can be determined in two ways: with:

a) For every judge Ji the indicator weight is obtained by criteria
aik $εk
reported in (7) 3: Wi ¼ SKk ¼ 1 (17)
K$L
  h

i
1
wij ¼ 5 a1ij 5b1j 4/4 akij 5bkj (8) bik $zk
KL Xi ¼ SKk ¼ 1 (18)
K$L
and so on for all judges; then the average value of fuzzy weight wij is
    gik $hk
1 Yi ¼ SKk ¼ 1 (19)
w’i ¼ 5 wi1 4/4win (9) K$L
nL
dik $qk
which is again a fuzzy number. Zi ¼ SKk ¼ 1 (20)
k k K$L
b) The judge Ji makes fuzzy number akij ¼ ðakij =bij ; gkij =dij Þ and
bkj ¼ ðεkj =zkj ; hkj =qkj Þ then the average values are given by:
ðbik  aik Þ$ðzk  εk Þ
L1 ¼ SKk ¼ 1 (21)
akij K$L
aik ¼ Snj¼ 1 (10)
n
aik $ðzk  εk Þ þ εk $ðbik  aik Þ
L2 ¼ SKk ¼ 1 (22)
to obtain K$L

mik ¼ ðaik =bik ; gik =dik Þ (11) ðdik  gik Þ$ðqk  hk Þ

U1 ¼ SKk ¼ 1 (23)
K$L

qk $ðdik  gik Þ þ dik $ðqk  hk Þ

U2 ¼ SKk ¼ 1 (24)
2
The fuzzy number trapezoid are used because they are more comprehensible by K$L
the expert-judges. In fact, to say “about 7”, can be indicated with notation (6/7, 7/8),
The terms Wi, Xi, Yi, Zi represent the weight components (fuzzy
while “included between 6 and 7” it can be indicated by notation (6/6, 7/7).
3
The symbol 5, 4 represent a multiplication and addition fuzzy, respectively.
number), while the terms L1, L2, U1, U2 are the coefficients of a 2nd
For example if A ¼ (1, 2, 3, 4) and B ¼ (2, 3, 3, 4): A5B ¼ (12, 23, 33, 44) ¼ (2, 6, order polynomial, that represents the membership of the fuzzy
9, 16) and A4B ¼ (1þ2, 2þ3, 3þ3, 4þ4)¼(3, 5, 7, 8). number weight.
 Author's personal copy

330 G.C. Lazaroiu, M. Roscia / Energy 47 (2012) 326e332

Table 3 Table 5
Indicators matrix, evaluated by smart governance criteria. Indicators average value.

Smart governance criteria M14¼ 1.4 1.4 2 2

M24¼ 2 2 2.6 2.6
J1 J2 J3 J4 J5
M34¼ 2 2 2.6 2.6
1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 M44¼ 1 1 1 1
2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 M54¼ 2 2 2.6 2.6
3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 M64¼ 6.4 6.6 7.8 8
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M74¼ 6.6 6.8 8 8.2
5 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 M84¼ 2.8 3 4.2 4.2
6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 5 6 7 8 7 7 8 8 7 7 9 9 M94¼ 7 7.2 8.2 8.2
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 7 7 9 9 6 6 8 8 6 7 8 9 M104¼ 7 7.2 8.2 8.4
8 3 4 5 5 4 4 6 6 2 2 3 3 2 2 4 4 3 3 3 3 M114¼ 4.8 4.8 5.6 5.8
9 7 7 8 8 6 6 8 8 6 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8 8 8 M124¼ 6.6 7 8 8.4
10 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 6 6 8 8 7 7 7 8 7 7 9 9 M134¼ 5.6 5.8 7.2 7.4
11 5 5 6 6 4 4 5 6 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 4 4 6 6 M144¼ 2.2 2.2 2.8 2.8
12 9 9 9 9 6 6 8 8 7 7 8 8 6 7 8 9 5 6 7 8 M154¼ 1.4 1.4 2 2
13 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 6 6 8 8 5 5 9 9 5 6 6 7 M164¼ 2.2 2.2 2.8 2.8
14 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 M174¼ 1 1 1 1
15 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 M184¼ 5 5.2 6.2 6.2
16 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3
17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
18 5 5 6 6 5 5 6 6 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 7 7
environment, smart energy and mobility and smart governance) and
18 indicators reported in Table 1. The proposed model can easily be
The membership functions are: extended to a higher number of judges, criteria and indicators,
making thus possible the aggregation of higher number of input
mik ¼ ðaik =bik ; gik =dik Þ (25) data. For giving the indicators homogeneity as indicators, in order
to compare them, their weights are calculated with fuzzy logic [16].
nk ¼ ðεk =zk ; hk =qk Þ (26) The methodology is the following: judges express through fuzzy
numbers their opinion on the criteria and evaluate the indicators
they are equal to: 0 for x  a and x  d and x  e and x  q with respect to all evaluated criteria. The criteria and indicators
respectively, equal to 1 for b  x  g and z  x  h respectively. In matrix obtained for the Smart Governance Criteria are reported in
the average range, as between ai and bi the membership functions Table 2, respectively Table 3.
are linear and can be expressed by The resulted database is used for calculating the weights from
the average values of the criteria and indicators given by the judges.
xi ¼ ðbi  ai Þ$y þ ai (27)
The fuzzy average values nk obtained by criteria and the values mik
Considering that the fuzzy products, the membership functions obtained by i-th indicator for k-th criteria are reported in the
of the weights obtained, are expressed by following relations: Table 4, respectively Table 5. The obtained weights components are
reported in Table 6. For obtaining the crisp number of the weight,
L1 $y2 þ L2 $y þ Wi ¼ x the “defuzzification” is made using the average value method and
(28)
U1 $y2 þ U2 $y þ Zi ¼ x then normalized as average weight, as reported in Table 7.
The weight results analysis shows that based on the opinion
consequently the weight wi are expressed by (Wi[L1, L2]/Xi, expressed by the judges, the smart city is particularly influenced by
Yi/Zi[U1, U2]). Sustainable, Innovative And Safe public transportation, fuel, GWh
4. Once the weights, that are fuzzy numbers, are obtained, it is household and Production Of Municipal Solid Waste. A low sensitivity
necessary to obtain a real number or “crisp” number by a “defuz- is associated with transparent governance and availability of ICT-
zification” method. One of these methods is based on the average infrastructure.
values using the following relation [18]:

Z1 Table 6
FðAi Þ ¼ ð1=2Þ $½g1 ðyjAi Þ þ g2 ðyjAi Þ dy Weights components.

0 W X Y Z L1 L2 U1 U2
1 1 1 1 2.152 2.582 3.224 3.479 0.015 0.415 0.003 0.258
¼ $ðL1i þ U1i Þ þ $ðL2i þ U2i Þ þ $ðZi þ Wi Þ (29) 2 2.69 3.089 3.771 4.064 0.011 0.388 0.002 0.295
6 4 2
3 2.58 2.995 3.646 4.031 0.014 0.401 0.01 0.395
4 1.764 2.165 2.609 2.907 0.017 0.384 0.006 0.304
5 2.72 3.155 3.776 4.101 0.014 0.421 0.005 0.33
7. Smart city model proposed 6 2.54 3.098 3.959 4.528 0.017 0.541 0.017 0.586
7 2.683 3.224 3.995 4.565 0.014 0.527 0.017 0.587
The example considers a possible smart city model. The model 8 2.342 2.718 3.562 4.056 0.011 0.365 0.017 0.511
9 3.394 3.915 4.883 5.435 0.017 0.504 0.013 0.565
is obtained using 5 judges, 4 criteria (smart economy, smart
10 2.205 2.65 3.398 3.799 0.017 0.428 0.013 0.414
11 1.847 2.214 2.83 3.127 0.013 0.354 0.007 0.304
Table 4 12 2.66 3.131 3.961 4.418 0.015 0.456 0.011 0.468
Criteria average value. 13 3.459 3.924 4.918 5.362 0.011 0.454 0.006 0.45
14 3.108 3.527 4.402 4.892 0.013 0.406 0.011 0.501
n1¼ 5 5.6 6 6.6 15 3.211 3.673 4.418 4.801 0.016 0.446 0.004 0.387
n2¼ 6 6.6 7 7.4 16 2.345 2.673 3.444 3.878 0.007 0.321 0.012 0.446
n3¼ 6.6 6.8 7.6 8 17 1.413 1.62 2.149 2.371 0.006 0.201 0.006 0.228
n4¼ 4.6 5.4 6.2 6.6 18 2.326 2.663 3.517 3.85 0.011 0.326 0.008 0.341
 Author's personal copy

G.C. Lazaroiu, M. Roscia / Energy 47 (2012) 326e332 331

Table 7
Defuzzification.

Defuzzification Weight normal

1 2.858 0.48
2 3.402 0.57
3 3.311 0.56
4 2.359 0.4
5 3.436 0.58
6 3.528 0.59
7 3.614 0.61
8 3.167 0.53
9 4.404 0.74
10 3.011 0.51
11 2.503 0.42
12 3.54 0.59
13 4.414 0.74
14 3.98 0.67
15 4.024 0.68
16 3.083 0.52
17 1.887 0.32
18 3.087 0.52

The present paper presents a model for defining the “smart

cities”, considering the pre-chosen criteria (economy, environment,
energy and mobility, governance), with different weights defined
based on the fuzzy logic. The weights of various criteria are
computed using the fuzzy logic and their importance is defined, or
can be defined, using the fuzzy logic. The application reported deals
with the most important criteria of the European Community
development in the areas of economic, energy and environmental
policies.

8. Enforcement for 10 smart city model proposed

An application for the cities of Italy through the weights calculated

with fuzzy logic is conducted. The analysis allows estimating the
smart city in accordance with the established goals. For each indicator
a “smart city goal”, equal to 100, is determined without attributing the
weights. Therefore, each indicator can assume a value between
0 (min) and 100 (max). For the cities Pavia, Bergamo, Como, Salerno,
Cremona, Roma, Foggia, Rieti, Milan, Naples the proposed method of
calculation is applied. The results are reported in Table 8.
Fig. 1 shows the outline of the smart city conditions and the
“real” outline (in this case equal to 100) for all the cities investi-
gated, without considering the weights. The grey area shows the
“real” values of the 18 indicators chosen. The edges are weighed for
an “ideal”, but not utopian city. The external black line shows the
values without the weights. Fig. 1 highlights how the smart city
objective changes by weighting the chosen indicators. For the
investigated cities, it is highlighted how some parameters widely
respect the smart city condition, and how others parameters need
further work for limiting. It can be seen that only some parameters
do not respect the smart city concept, while others respect totally
the established goals.

Table 8
Smart city indices.

Classification with fuzzy weights

Pavia 0.68
Bergamo 0.63
Como 0.62
Salerno 0.6
Cremona 0.56
Rome 0.56
Rieti 0.50
Naples 0.47
Foggia 0.47
Fig. 1. Smart city conditions and “real” outline of smart city, considering the weights
Milan 0.43
for various Italian cities.
 Author's personal copy
332 G.C. Lazaroiu, M. Roscia / Energy 47 (2012) 326e332
9. Conclusions
The smart city represents the future challenge, a city model
where the technology is in service to the person and to his
economical and social life quality improvement.
The applied methodology for calculating smart indicator
weights, for selected criteria, highlights the importance of decision
maker’s subjectivity. In fact, assigning the weight of a smart indi-
cator with respect to another smart indicator, every decision maker
is brought to reason in a less objective way. The proposed system,
even starting from subjective evaluation, allows the combination of
different opinions on various indicators, by means of different
criteria. Moreover, the final results will be a combination of values
assigned by different judges for various criteria by fuzzy number,
which translates verbal expression in a numerical quantity. The
example reported in this paper is on a hypothetical smart city and
the evaluation of the weight, criteria and indicator have not been
carried out by experts of the specific fields. In case of a real city, the
establishment of correct values requires the experts contribution in
the various chosen fields. Therefore, it will be possible to equip the
policy maker with information for “ready consultation”, to provide
him the information that allow to attend and to estimate the effects
of his intervention.
The proposed innovative system results in a more extended
comprehension and simple use, both for the decision makers as
well for the citizens, without yielding to competencies and
personal subjectivity.
References
[1] European Union. Intelligent energy e Europe: for a sustainable future. Brus-
sels: EU Commission. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/
about/index_en.htm; 2012 [last date of access 05.09.12].
[2] Carvalho MG. EU energy and climate change strategy. Energy 2012;40(1):19e22.
View publication stats
[3] Mathiesen BV, Lund H, Karlsson K. 100% renewable energy systems,
climate mitigation and economic growth. Applied Energy 2011;88(2):
488e501.
[4] Lund H, Mathiesen BV. Energy system analysis of 100% renewable energy
systems e the case of Denmark in years 2030 and 2050. Energy 2009;34(5):
524e31.
[5] Wang L, Xu L, Song H. Environmental performance evaluation of Beijing’s
energy use planning. Energy Policy 2011;39(6):3483e95.
[6] Jovanovic M, Afgan N, Bakic V. An analytical method for the measurement of
energy system sustainability in urban areas. Energy 2010;35(9):3909e20.
[7] Ardebili AV, Boussabaine AH. Application of fuzzy techniques to develop an
assessment framework for building design eco-drivers. Building and Envi-
ronment 2007;42(11):3785e800.
[8] Wua YY, Wang HL, Ho YF. Urban ecotourism: defining and assessing dimen-
sions using fuzzy number construction. Tourism Management 2010;31(6):
739e43.
[9] Awasthi A, Chauhan SS, Omrani H. Application of fuzzy TOPSIS in evaluating
sustainable transportation systems. Expert Systems with Applications 2011;
38(10):12270e80.
[10] Peche R, Rodriguez E. Environmental impact assessment by means of
a procedure based on fuzzy logic: a practical application. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review 2011;31(2):87e96.
[11] Sattler C, Nagel UJ, Werner A, Zander P. Integrated assessment of agricultural
production practices to enhance sustainable development in agricultural
landscapes. Ecological Indicators 2010;10(1):49e61.
[12] European Union. Intelligent energy d Europe in action. Brussels: EU
Commission. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/in-action/
index_en.htm; 2012 [last date of access 05.09.12].
[13] European Smart Cities. Centre of Regional Science Vienna University of
Technology; 2012. Available from: http://www.smart-cities.eu/model.html
[last date of access 05.09.12].
[14] European Union. European observation network for territorial development
and cohesion (ESPON). Brussels: EU Commission. Available from: http://www.
espon.eu/main/Menu_Projects/Menu_ESPON2006Projects/Menu_
ThematicProjects/; 2012 [last date of access 05.09.12].
[15] Gagliardi F, Roscia C, Lazaroiu G. Evaluation of a city through fuzzy logic.
Energy 2007;32(5):795e802.
[16] Buckley JJ. Ranking alternatives using fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Sets Systems
1985;15:21e31.
[17] Yager RR. Fuzzy decision making including unequal objectives. Fuzzy Sets
Systems 1978;1(2):87e95.
[18] Yager RR. A procedure for ordering fuzzy subsets of the unit interval. Infor-
mation Sciences 1981;24(2):143e61.